RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TRIMS/M/30 
1 November 2010 
 (10-5761) 
Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures  
   
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD 
ON 1 OCTOBER 2010 
 
Note by the Secretariat
 
 
 
1. The Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the "Committee") met on 
1 October 2010.  The meeting was opened and conducted under the Chairpersonship of 
Dr. Octavia CERCHEZ (Romania).  The Committee adopted  the agenda contained in 
WTO/AIR/3609. 
A. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT  
2. The Chairperson  indicated that Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Trade Related Investment 
Measures (the "TRIMs" Agreement) requires Member s to notify the Secretariat of publications in 
which TRIMs may be found, including those ap plied by regional and local governments and 
authorities.  She reported that since the last mee ting of the Committee, a notification under Article 6.2 
was received from Burkina Faso, while Croatia; th e European Union; and Peru submitted updated 
notifications.  The latest compilation of all notifi cations made under Article 6.2 was circulated in 
document G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev.20, dated 3 September 2010 .  She also drew Members' attention to the 
notification submitted by Turkey pursuant to the same article, circulated in document 
G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev.20/Add.1.  The Chairperson indicated that this notification would be included in the next revision of the compilation of notifications made under this article. 
3. She recalled that compliance with this notif ication obligation was discussed informally on 
17 March 2009 and then formally on 20 May 2009.  She reminded Members that Article 6.2 and the 
1996 Committee Decision contained in document G/ TRIMS/5 required each Member to notify the 
Secretariat of the names of publications in whic h TRIMs might be found, where such publications 
exist, including those applied by regional and local governments and authorities within their 
territories, and the addresses from which copies could be obtained, without prejudice to the legal 
consistency of any TRIM which might be found in the publications notified.   
4. She reiterated that the obligation to provide publications related to all TRIMs Members 
maintain, not only those inconsistent with the TR IMs Agreement, but those consistent with the 
Agreement too.  In other words, in case a Member  had no TRIMs which were inconsistent with the 
TRIMs Agreement, but maintained TRIMs consiste nt with the TRIMs Agreement, that Member 
would have an obligation to report all publi cations where such TRIMs might be found.   
5. The Chairperson also recalled that the Committ ee agreed at its formal meeting held on 
20 May 2009 that the Secretariat issue reminders  every six months to remind Members of this 
notification obligation and that, accordingly, the S ecretariat had issued, on 16 April 2010, the first 
2010 reminder in this regard which was circul ated in document G/TR IMS/W/73 and the second 
reminder which was circulated in document G/TR IMS/W/76 dated 7 September 2010.  She strongly 
urged Members that had not provided their notificati ons to date, 45 Members to be exact, to provide G/TRIMS/M/30 
Page 2  
 
  such a notification promptly and requested Members that had provided it some time ago to have it 
updated.   
6. The representative of the European Union
 stressed the importance of the issue of fostering the 
implementation of the existing notification requireme nts and mechanisms.  He welcomed the efforts 
undertaken by the Chairperson and the Secretaria t to remind Members of these requirements, in 
particular those Members that had not yet fulfilled th eir commitments in this respect.  He referred to 
the updated notification provided by the European Un ion and member States in which the European 
Union listed the names of the publications where TR IMs could be found without prejudice to the legal 
consistency of any of the TRIMs which mi ght be found in those publications.  
7. The representative of the European Union drew Members' attention to the fact that some 
notifications submitted by Members reflected a ce rtain misunderstanding with respect to what 
Article 6.2 of the TRIMs Agreement required.  He  explained that although in some cases Members 
would just notify that they did not maintain any TRIMs, which might well be true and not contested, 
Article 6.2 provided for a different notification requi rement.  This Article would require Members to 
indicate in which publications TRIMs might be found,  if such publications exist.  He invited Members 
to look at this issue and update their notifications ac cordingly.  He also requested the Chairperson and 
the Secretariat to pursue all efforts to ensure th at the appropriate functioning of the notification 
mechanism was maintained in a manner which coul d contribute to the overall WTO transparency.   
8. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this item at a future 
meeting.   
B. PROPOSALS ON SPECIAL  AND DIFFERENTIAL (S&D) TREATMENT PROVISION S RELATED TO THE 
TRIMS AGREEMENT  
9. The Chairperson  recalled that pursuant to the Decision adopted by the General Council on 
1 August 2004 (WT/L/579) and paragraph 37 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration 
(WT/MIN(05)/DEC), the TRIMs Committee continued its consideration of the Category II Special 
and Differential Treatment ("S&D") proposals which were referred to it by the Chairman of the 
General Council.  The proposals were original ly submitted by the African Group in document 
TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 and relate to Articles 4 and 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement.  In April 2007, Kenya 
on behalf of the African Group s ubmitted a revised version of th e proposals, which dealt more 
specifically with the concerns of the proponents (see Annex).   
10. In June and October 2007, the Chairperson of  the Committee at the time held informal 
discussions with interested delegations on the revi sed proposals.  These were further discussed at the 
meeting of the Committee held on 1 November 2007 at which the representative of Kenya said that 
they were open to listen to any new ideas concerning these proposals, particularly with respect to the 
drafting, and that the African Group felt that it had gone as far as it could on this issue, unless there 
were other suggestions by other Members.  No fu rther revisions to the draft proposals were received 
from the proponents since then.   
11. The Chairperson added that the latest revisi on of the African Group's proposals was annexed 
to the Minutes of the October 2008 meeting contained in document G/TRIMS/M/29 .  The discussion 
of the revised text which took place at the informal  consultations held in June and October 2007 and 
at the November 2007 meeting of the TRIMs Committ ee was reflected in the Minutes of that meeting 
(contained in document G/TRIMS/ M/26, paragraphs 4-9).   
12. In accordance with paragraph 37 of the Hong K ong Ministerial Declaration, the Chairperson 
of the TRIMs Committee at the time submitted an oral re port to the General Council on  G/TRIMS/M/30 
 Page 3 
 
 
  18 December 2007 (contained in document WT/GC/ M/112, paragraph 142) on the work undertaken 
by the Committee with respect to the S&D proposals.   
13. At the meeting of 23 October 2008, the Chairp erson's predecessor expr essed his readiness to 
continue his informal consultations on this issu e, should Members so wish, and report back to the 
Committee and the General Council at an appropriat e time on any further developments.  However,  
no delegation contacted the Chairperson or the Secret ariat to request the continuation of the informal 
consultations in this regard.   
14. The Chairperson also recalled that at the Committee meeting of 16 October 2009, she opened 
the floor for comments on this issue, but no Member took the floor and she thus indicated that she had 
nothing to report to the General Council.  However,  she indicated her readin ess to continue informal 
consultations on this issue, should Members so  wish, and report back to the Committee and the 
General Council at an appropriate time on any furthe r developments.  She requested all interested 
Members to contact her or the Secretariat, if they wished such consultations to be conducted.  The 
Chairperson added that she made an oral re port to the General Council to this effect on 
17 December 2009 (contained in document  WT/GC/M/124, paragraph 52).      
15. The Chairperson opened the floor for comments on this issue at the 1 October 2010 meeting, 
but no Member took the floor.  She reiterated the willingness to continue informal consultations on 
this issue, should Members so wish, and indicated that any further developments would be reported 
back to the Committee and the Ge neral Council at an appropriat e time.  She invited Members 
requesting such consultations to contact the Ch airperson or the Secretariat in this regard. 
16. The Committee took note  of the Chairperson's statement.   
C. CERTAIN NEW AND PROPOSED MEASURES BY INDONESIA ADDRESSING LOCAL CONTENT IN 
INVESTMENT IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR – REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND 
JAPAN  
17. The Chairperson  recalled that this issue was pla ced on the agendas of the Committee 
meetings held on 20 May and 16 October 2009 and that discussions in this respect could be found in 
the minutes of the meetings contained in documen ts G/TRIMS/M/28 and G/TRIMS/M/29.  She added 
that the European Union and Jap an requested that this issue be placed on the agenda of the 
Committee's 1 October 2010 meeting.  She drew Member s' attention to the written questions posed in 
this regard by Japan to Indonesia contained in document G/TRIMS/W/71, the written answers 
provided by Indonesia in this respect containe d in document G/TRIMS/W/75, and the additional 
questions submitted by Japan in this context a nd circulated in document G/TRIMS/W/78.   
18. The representative of Japan  expressed appreciation for the I ndonesian answers to Japan's 
questions contained in document G/TRIMS/W/75.  However, she indicated that there were several 
points which would need further clarification.  She referred to Japan's written follow-up questions 
contained in document G/TRIMS/W/78 and brie fly provided a summary of these questions.  
19. Firstly, on the Decree No. 38/2007 as amended by the Decree No. 32/2008 which stipulated 
the universal service obligations of the telecommunication provider, Indonesia explained that it was a 
bidding transaction using the government funds a nd, therefore, was regarded as government 
procurement.  The representative of Japan requ ested Indonesia to further clarify whether the 
procurement implemented by a service operator, who would be selected by the government, could be 
regarded as government procurement.   
20. Secondly, on the Decrees No. 7/2009 and No. 10/2009 which stipulated the local content 
requirements applied to the capital and operational expenditures,  the representative of Japan indicated G/TRIMS/M/30 
Page 4  
 
  that it seemed that such requirements could affect  the distribution of goods, since both expenditures 
apparently entailed the purchase of goods.  Consequently, she request ed Indonesia to explain why  
such requirements would not affect the distribution of goods and the national treatment obligation of 
GATT 1994.  
21. Finally, the representative of Japan hoped that th e answers to such questions would contribute 
to the better understanding of Indonesia's teleco mmunications regulations relating to TRIMs.   
22. The representative of the European Union
 stressed the importance of this issue and 
appreciated the answers provided by Indonesia in the past as well as the additional elements contained 
in document G/TRIMS/W/75.  However, he indicated  that the European Union would request further 
clarification with respect to several elements of  Indonesia's telecommunications legislation.  He 
requested Indonesia to provide an update on the latest developments regarding the 
telecommunications decrees.   
23. The representative of the European Union added that at the last TRIMs Committee meeting, 
held on 16 October 2009, he raised a set of questi ons among which he requested Indonesia to further 
clarify its arguments that the legislation at stak e did not regulate goods.  He also referred to his 
request pertaining to the details of the proce dures according to which the funding of the projects 
would take place.  He also supported the requests fo r additional clarifications  by other delegations, in 
particular with respect to Indonesia's statement in  document G/TRIMS/W/75, in which it indicated 
that: " it is clear that the project is funded by the government of Indonesia as government 
procurement ".  He requested further clarification with respect to this argument, as well as in relation 
to the mechanism of the bidding process.  He stat ed that the European Un ion was still assessing the 
replies provided by Indonesia and might circulate add itional written questions in this respect at a later 
stage.   
24. The representative of the United States  expressed his appreciation for the responses provided 
to the questions posed by Japan, as well as its prio r responses to questions from the United States and 
the European Union.  He indicated that he shared  the concerns expressed by other Members about the 
provisions which appear to favour local content.  He urged Indonesia to bear in mind that such 
provisions could discourage both investment and innovation.  In an area such as telecommunications with important knock on effects in the rest of th e economy, such policies, while perhaps providing 
short-term benefits to a small sector of the ec onomy, might have deleterious effects on Indonesia's 
overall development goals. 
25. The representative of Indonesia
 thanked the delegations of the European Union and Japan for 
their questions and indicated that these questions we re also forwarded to Capital for more detailed 
formal replies.  As a preliminary response, he  indicated that with regard to the question on 
government procurement, he drew Members' attention to Decree No. 54/2010 on Government 
Procurement.  The Decree considered the acquis ition of goods/services by Ministries; institutions; 
working units of regional apparatus; or othe r institutions using state budget, as government 
procurement.   
26. He added that the state budget referred to in the Ministerial Decree No. 32/2008 was obtained 
through the universal service obligation contribution by operators who had ac quired a license, through 
bidding, to set up services in the "Universal Tele communication Service Areas".  These were areas 
with no telecommunications facilities; infrastructure;  or services; such as poor, remote, developing, or 
border areas, as well as areas which were econom ically under-developed.  Operators providing 
services in these areas were selected through a biddi ng process by the Government and had provided 
universal service obligation contribution, a non-tax gove rnment income.  This income became part of 
the state budget and when used to acquire goods/ services was considered government procurement.   G/TRIMS/M/30 
 Page 5 
 
 
  27. As to the question of what would constitute government procurement, Decree No. 54/2010 
stipulated that it would be the procurement of  the Government's goods/services carried out by 
Ministries, institutions, working units of regional apparatus, or other institutions, whose process 
included needs planning and the completion of the acquisition.  Concerning the question as to whether 
the Decree fulfilled the requirement of Article 2 of  the TRIMS Agreement, he referred to Indonesia's 
previous response that the Decree did not regulate ex port or import restrictions, nor did it differentiate 
between local and foreign service providers.  
28. The representative of Indonesia also clarified that the Decree No. 10/2010 was the one in 
effect.  As to the local procurement as specified in Decree No. 7/2009, this was considered as capital 
expenditure.  He added that the Decree No. 41/2009 further specified that capital expenditure did not 
only constitute local content because it encompass ed engineering, goods, labour, equipment and 
supporting services.  
29. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
D. CERTAIN INDONESIAN LAWS AND DRAFT IMP LEMENTING REGULATIONS ON MINERAL AND 
COAL MINING - REQUEST BY THE UNITED STATES  
30. The Chairperson  recalled that this issue was placed on the agenda of the Committee meeting 
held on 16 October 2009 and that discussions pertaini ng to this issue could be found in the minutes of 
that meeting  contained in document G/TRIMS/M/29.   She drew Members' attention to document 
G/TRIMS/W/70 containing written questions posed to Indonesia in this respect and document 
G/TRIMS/W/74 containing Indonesia's written answers to these questions.  She indicated that the United States requested that this item be placed on the agenda of the Committee's 1 October 2010 
meeting.   
31. The representative of the United States
 expressed his appreciation to Indonesia for providing 
answers to the United Stat es' questions on various laws in Indonesi a applicable to investment in the 
coal and mining sector.  He stated that the update on th e status of the laws was particularly helpful.  
He referred to Indonesia's comment that while official  translations of the relevant laws into English 
were not available, there were unofficial transla tions and requested Indonesia to direct Members to 
relevant sources of such unofficial translations. 
32. On what Indonesia noted with respect to certa in implementing regulations which were still 
being discussed within the Indonesian Government, the  representative of the United States requested 
Indonesia to provide an update on the status of those implementing regulations, and any information 
Indonesia could share about the issues under consideration.  
33. The representative of the United States express ed concern with respect to Indonesia's 
descriptions of provisions of its law relating to pr ioritizing the use of domestic goods and services, in 
particular the following statements: " Based on Article 87 of the Government Regulation No. 23/ 2010, 
the IUP and IUPK must prioritize the use of  domestic goods, equipm ents, and/or supporting 
materials, as well as imported products being sold  in Indonesia used for mineral and coal mining 
activities that: a) meet the quality and post-sales service standards, and b) guarantee the 
sustainability of supply and timely distribution.  Th e objective is to support the growth of domestic 
industry through the mining sector.  This impli es that when domestic goods, equipments, and/or 
supporting materials do not fulfil the above-menti oned requirements, the IUP and IUPK will allow 
the imports of such products.  Plans to import must  be reported to the Minister in charge of mineral 
and coal mining and must comply with relevant rules and regulations. " 
34. The representative of the United States inquired whether it was true that so long as domestic 
goods of sufficient quantity and a ppropriate quality were available, investors were prohibited from G/TRIMS/M/30 
Page 6  
 
  importing goods, equipment and supporting material fo r use in their commercial activities.  He further 
questioned what was meant by the Indonesian stat ement that these provisions could be satisfied by 
using "imported products being sold in Indonesia?"  For example, would this refer only to specific 
articles of merchandise which were imported into Indonesia prior to a certain date?  In the coal and 
mining sector, in which goods and equipment could be expected to degrade with use, such a 
requirement would not have much meaning when supplies of previously imported goods would be 
exhausted. 
35. In the alternative, the represen tative of the United States inquired whether authorization to use 
"imported products being sold in Indonesia" would allow investors to continue to import goods and 
equipment of the same type which were currently  imported?  He indicated that while such a 
requirement would be less odious than a prohibition on imports, it would still prevent investors from 
taking advantage of new technologies developed outside of Indonesia. 
36. In a nutshell, the representative of the Unite d States expressed concern that Indonesia's 
answer could be understood to mean that in orde r to be permitted to un dertake commercial activities 
in the coal and mining sector, investors were require d to purchase and use products of domestic origin 
or from a domestic source.  He requested Indonesia to  elaborate on the basis for its stated belief that 
the provisions being questioned are consistent with  Article III of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs 
Agreement, and Paragraph 1 of the Annex. 
37. The representative of the European Union
 indicated that the Europ ean Union attached great 
importance to developments pertaining to the In donesian Laws and Draft Implementing Regulations 
on Mineral and Coal Mining.  He also expressed his appreciation for the responses provided by 
Indonesia in document G/TRIMS/W/74 in this respect.  He requested Indonesia to confirm whether an 
unofficial English translation of its Mining Law a nd its Implementing Regulations was available and 
where such translation could be obtained.  He a dded that Indonesia had also pointed out that two 
implementing regulations were being discussed and requested Indonesia to indicate the next steps 
which would be taken with respect to these draft regulations and the timeframe within which they 
would be expected to be adopted.    
38. On Indonesia's explanations in document G/TRIMS/W/74 under the title "Prioritizing the 
Utilization of Domestic Goods and Services", the representative of the European Union requested 
further clarification regarding the statement that IUP and IUPK should prioritize the use of domestic 
goods, equipment and/or supporting materials, as we ll as imported products being sold in Indonesia 
which would be used for mineral and coal mining ac tivities provided that certain conditions were met, 
while Indonesia made it clear that the objective was to support the growth of its domestic industry 
through the mining sector.  He added that the Eur opean Union was examining the different replies 
provided by Indonesia and that further questions or comments might be circulated in this respect.          
39. The representative of Canada  expressed appreciation for the answers provided by Indonesia to 
the questions posed by the Europ ean Union and the United States regarding investment in the mining 
sector.  She indicated that Canada had been follo wing the developments of the new mining regime 
with great interest and expressed Canada's con cern regarding the potentia lly negative impact on 
current and future foreign mining investments in Indonesia.  She added that Canada shared the 
concerns expressed by others that certain provisions  of the new mining regime would appear to favour 
a local content, while others would appear to rest rict exports.  She encourag ed Indonesia to share any 
additional information which it mi ght believe could help clarify the impact of the measures in 
question.        
40. The representative of Indonesia  expressed his appreciation to United States for its keen 
interest on Law Nº 4/2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining and its Implementing Regulations, 
Government Regulation Nº 23/2010.  He explained th at Article 87 of the Regulation did not constitute  G/TRIMS/M/30 
 Page 7 
 
 
  a prohibition on importing goods, equipment and/or supporting materials used for mineral and coal 
mining activities.  It would only encourage the holder of Mining Permit or "IUP" and Special Mining Permit Holders or "IUPK" to use goods, equipment and/or supporting materials that were already 
available in the Indonesian domestic market.  He a dded that investors were not advised to import by 
themselves, but they could take advantage of th e local suppliers whose goods and equipment were 
actually imported.  This regulation was applied to ensure that foreign investors would bring more 
benefits to the Indonesian people and to maintain  the continuity of their businesses in Indonesia. 
41. The representative of Indonesia indicated that Regulation No. 87 did not impose deadlines for 
importing goods, equipment and/or supporting materials which would be used by the Mining Permit 
holders.  As long as the needed goods were not sold  or available in the Indonesian market, "IUP" or 
"IUPK" could themselves import the goods of any t ype and specification needed, on the condition that 
they would make a notification to this effect to  the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources. 
42. Concerning the question of whether the Decrees  fulfil the requirements of Article 2 of the 
TRIMS Agreement, the representative of Indonesi a underlined that Regulation No. 23/2010 was not 
inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994, Artic le 2 and paragraph 1 of the Annex to the TRIMS 
Agreement, as the Regulation did not prohibit imports  of any goods from outside Indonesia.  It would 
regulate the domestic as well as foreign Mining Pe rmit or Special Mining Permit holders.  He added 
that he would be providing the answers in writing to the Committee for circulation to all Members. 
43. The representative of Indonesia indicated that he would seize this opportunity to provide 
some additional information on the Government Re gulation No. 87/2009 in the hope that this would 
further clarify the issue.  He explained that the ma nagement of minerals and coal had been subject to 
control by the state in order to maximize the a dded value to the national economy and realize the 
people's welfare.  Previously, the Government of Indonesia issued Law Number 11/1967 concerning the Basel Provisions for Mining.  As the time pas sed, the law with its centralized content in nature, 
was no longer able to keep pace with the current  developments and future challenges.  Mines' 
development had to adjust to both national and inte rnational strategic environmental challenges.  The 
primary challenge was the globaliza tion effects which should foster democratization, human rights, 
the environment and stronger demand for improved priv ate and public participation.  Furthermore, the 
regulations with respect to coal and mineral mini ng required revision due to the enactment of the 2007 
Investment Law which required that both foreign and domestic investors be treated equitably. 
Changes to this law were also necessary due to significant developments in the Indonesian regulatory 
and political landscape over the last decades.  Specif ically, the nature of Indonesia's democracy, the 
enactment of Indonesia's new autonomy Law in 1999, further amended in 2001, had a very significant 
impact on the mining business.  The law required the delegation of some of the Central Government 
powers, with respect to a region's resources, to regional and local governments.  
44. The representative of Indonesia added that the Indonesian transition to become a democratic 
country had also opened up more horizons for vo icing the public demands, directly or through 
parliament, on the need to address the challenges of  welfare gap and distribution of the benefits of 
national resources to al1 people, especially the needy, something which could not be addressed through the previous Mining Law.  He noted that the operation of giant mining companies with billions of dollars of annual profit, had not yet yi elded a real impact which could affect the lives of 
people living nearby.  Millions of people still live un der the poverty line while their natural resources 
had been exploited for many years.  In certain part  of Indonesia, this issue was even a political issue 
and had become a source of social conflict and unrest.  It was in the spirit of addressing these acute 
problems that Law number 4/2009 and its Implemen ting Regulation No 23/2010 were drafted and 
issued.  The law had provided long awaited chan ces for small and medium domestic enterprises and 
other common people to harvest the benefits of th eir natural resources, which would be in line with 
the mandate of the Indonesian Constitution.  G/TRIMS/M/30 
Page 8  
 
  45. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
46. No Member raised any issues under this agenda item.   
47. The Chairperson made a brief statement pertaini ng to her reply to the inquiry received from 
the Chairman of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology.  She stated that on 
13 August 2010, she received a letter from the Chairman of the Working Group on Trade and 
Transfer of Technology requesting information on an y discussion, submissions or other developments 
that might relate to the issue of trade and transfer of technology.  She indicated that, on 16 August 2010, she informed the Chairman of that Working Group that in the context of the discussions of the Outstanding Implementation Issu es pertaining to the TRIMs Agreement which took 
place in the TRIMs Committee, a communication was submitted by Brazil and India in October 2002 
(G/TRIMS/W/25) and supplemented by a communication circulated in document JOB(05)/149 of July 2005.  In this communication, the proponents called for an amendment to Article 4 of the TRIMs 
Agreement allowing developing countries to use TR IMs in order to, among other goals, stimulate 
transfer or indigenous development of technology.   
48.  The Chairperson also explained in her reply that discussions pertaining to this issue did not 
yield a positive outcome (G/TRIMS/M/15) and fu rther consultations were  envisaged.  On 
2 March 2006, the Deputy Director-General, Ms Vale ntine Rugwabiza, held informal consultations 
with a number of interested delegations to discuss this matter among other outstanding 
implementation issues.  In her report to the Direct or-General, Ms Rugwabiza indicated that significant 
differences of view remained both on the substan ce of all these issues and on the way to address them 
and that, in her view, rather than continue consultations at a technical  level, political input was needed 
to explore the possibilities for allowing greater flex ibility in Members' positions in respect of these 
issues.  The Chairperson finally i ndicated that there have been no di scussions on this issue since then.  
The Chairperson made available to Members copies  of the letter received from the Chairman of the 
Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology, as well as copies of her reply to this letter. 
F. 
DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
49. It was agreed that the next regular meeting of the Committee be held on Friday, 
7 October 2011.  The airgram convening the meeting would be circulated to all Members on Tuesday, 27 September 2011.  The last date for inscription of  items on the agenda of the meeting would be 
Friday, 23 September 2011, by close of business.   
G. 
ANNUAL REPORT (2010) 
50. The Chairperson  said that Article 7.3 of the TRIMs Agreement required the Committee to 
report annually to the CTG.  As a basis for th e Committee's consideration of this matter, the 
Secretariat had prepared a draft annual repo rt, which had been circulated in document 
G/TRIMS/W/77.  The report was updated, as appropria te, to take account of the present meeting.  She 
then invited reactions and comments from Me mbers on the proposed draft report.   
51. The Committee adopted  the Annual Report (2010).1  
                                                      
1 G/L/928.    G/TRIMS/M/30 
 Page 9 
 
 
  H. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
52. The Committee elected Dr. ZHAO Hong (China) to hold office until the end of the first 
meeting of 2011.  
 
___________________ G/TRIMS/M/30 
Page 10  
 
  ANNEX 
  
April 2007 
 
S&D CATEGORY II PROPOSALS ON THE TRIMS AGREEMENT
 
 
Revised proposal received from the delegation of Kenya on behalf of the African Group  
  
Proposal related to Article 4 of the TRIMs Agreement
 
 Members shall interpret and apply Article 4 of th e TRIMs Agreement in acco rdance with the balance-
of-payments provisions referred to in Article 4 of the TRIMs Agreement, and in a manner that fully 
supports measures taken by developing and least -developed country Members to safeguard their 
external financial position, balance-of-payments an d sufficiency of reserves, taking full account of 
paragraph 1.1 of the Ministerial Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns.
1  
 Members shall interpret and apply Article 4 of  the TRIMs Agreement in accordance with the 
provisions of Article XVIII of GA TT 1994 referred to in Article 4 of the TRIMs Agreement, and in a 
manner that fully supports measures taken by de veloping and least-developed country Members to 
promote the establishment of a particular industr y, taking full account of paragraph 1.1 of the 
Ministerial Decision on Implementati on-Related Issues and Concerns.
2   
 
• In considering requests to apply TRIMs unde r Article XVIII of the GATT 1994, Members 
shall take into account any difficulties encountered by least-developed and developing countries in meeting the notification and consultation requirements contained in 
Article XVIII, paragraphs 14 to 19, and the WTO Secretariat shall accord them such technical 
assistance and support as they may need in order to prepare their notifications and to carry out those consultations.   
• In order to assist least-developed and other low-income developing  countries whose 
dependence on primary production is partic ularly high and whose overall level of 
industrialisation is particularly low to accel erate their industrialisation process and to 
diversify the structure of their economies in line with the objective recognized in 
Article XXXVI:5 of the GATT 1994 and its Ad No te, the phrase "free to deviate temporarily 
from the provisions of Article 2" that is contai ned in Article 4 of the TRIMs Agreement shall 
be understood to refer, in the case of these c ountries, to a reasonable period of time sufficient 
to establish the particular industry in question on a competitive footing. 
 
Proposal related to Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement
 
 
Further to the Hong Kong Ministerial Decision in  favour of least-developed countries on Special 
and Differential Treatment relating to the Agre ement on Trade-Related Investment Measures3, 
other low-income developing countries that demonstrate difficulties in implementing the provisions 
of the TRIMs Agreement shall be provided with a new opportunity to notify TRIMs and to request 
transition periods to eliminate the measures.   
                                                      
1 Paragraph 1.1 of the Ministerial Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, adopted 
on 14 November 2001, "reaffirms that Article XVIII of  the GATT 1994 is a special and differential treatment 
provision for developing countries and that recourse to it should be less onerous than to Article XII of the 
GATT 1994". 
2 Ibid. 
3 WT/MIN(05)/DEC.  G/TRIMS/M/30 
 Page 11 
 
 
  With regard to requests made in this area by least-developed and other low-income developing 
country Members under Article IX of the WTO Agreement,  account shall be taken of their particular 
circumstances when setting the te rms and conditions, including ti me-frames, under which transition 
periods are granted.  
 
__________