RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TF/M/11 
14 December 2005 
 (05-5964) 
Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation  
  
 
 
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 9-11 and 18 November 2005  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Muhamad Noor Yacob (Malaysia) 
  
1. The Chair
 set out the agenda for the meeting. 
2. The agenda was adopted . 
A. PREPARATION OF THE REPORT TO THE TNC  FOR THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL 
CONFERENCE  
3. The Chair  said that under this item, the Negotiating Group (NG) would take up the issue of 
finalizing its report to the TNC.  Members would have  all noticed the draft circulated about ten days 
ago in document TN/TF/W/72. It had been prepared in  response to Members' request  for the Chair to 
draft such a text, and was based on their input as pr esented in the consultative and plenary sessions of 
the last NG meeting. In drawing up the report, he had therefore been guided by what he understood to 
be the points Members wished to see reflected, and driven by the wish to make it represent common 
ground. 
4. While clearly charged with a challenging task, he  had had the benefit of being able to base 
himself on a number of commonalities in Members' pos itions on this matter, and to profit from their 
constructive approach.  He wished to  seek Members'  reactions to this text and to see where one stood.  
As a Group  Report, it was obviously paramount for the draft to have Members' full support. 
5. While that was certainly an important step in the work, he also wished to recall that what 
Members were trying to do was agree on a report that encapsulated the NG's view on the progress 
made and the road ahead. The report would then have  to go to the TNC, and from there to the General 
Council, leaving Members with the opportunity to d ecide precisely how they would like to see the text 
reflected in the respective products of those bodies.     
6. He was, of course, aware of the broader ove rall context in which the NG operated and its 
implications on the work. At the same time, he consid ered it important to put things into perspective, 
and not to confuse the task with what was yet to come in the TNC and General Council process.  
7. In opening the floor for reactions he wished ther efore to ask Members to look at the draft for 
what it really was; a suggested report of the NGTF to the TNC. Any subsequent action on its reflection in the final text to Ministers would still be up for Members to decide.  
8. The representative of the Philippines
, speaking on behalf of the Core Group  conveyed the 
Core Group's appreciation for the positive and tr ansparent process in which the Chair had presented TN/TF/M/11 
Page 2  
 
the first draft of the Hong Kong report. The Co re Group believed that he had been faithful in 
reflecting the progress achieved so far. 
9. The Core Group noted with appreciation that  following the proposal the Core Group had 
made at the Negotiating Group  meeting last 25 Oc tober, the draft report had made reference (in 
paragraph 2) to both the Secretariat compilati on of proposals (TN/TFW/43/Rev.4) and to the 
Secretariat's summary of questions and responses (JOB(05)/222).  The Core Group also welcomed 
references in paragraph 2 to the important submi ssions on technical assistance and capacity building 
(TA&CB) as contained in TN/TF/W/33 and TN /TF/W/56 as well as on customs cooperation and 
customs compliance issues in TN/TF/W/57 and TN/TF/W/68. 
10. The Core Group wished to suggest minor amendmen ts to the text to reflect the reality of 
where Members were in the negotiations .  With respect to paragraph 2, 3
rd line of the 3rd sentence, the 
Core Group was concerned that the text as presently formulated appeared to pre-judge the outcome of 
the negotiations when stating that "Members we re building common ground on many aspects of that 
part of the negotiating mandate".  The Core Group be lieved that, given the current stage of the NG's 
discussions where Members were trying to have great er clarity on the proposals made,  any effort to 
build a common ground would be a subsequent process.   The language relating to that aspect therefore 
had to be adjusted to reflect that fact. 
11. With respect to paragraph 4, 5th line, the Core Group wished to highlight that the list 
mentioned in TN/TF/W/43/Rev.4 was just a compilation  of measures.  Any reference to such list 
should indicate that fact.  Similarly, measures listed in paragraph 1 did not have to be repeated in the 
report since they were already contained in the compilation document.   
12. In that same paragraph, with respect to the penultimate line's reference to moving to drafting 
mode in 2006, the Core Group wished to suggest replacing the phrase "early enough" with, "at an 
appropriate time", since "early enough" was rather  prescriptive and might not be realistic.  The Core 
Group was aware that, depending on the degree of  confidence each Member would achieve on its 
understanding of the proposals, a shift to focused drafting mode would follow. In any event, it had to 
happen in 2006. 
13. To successfully conclude the negotiations, th e presence of capital-based experts during the 
negotiations would be critical.  For developing countries,  that might be difficult to realize given their  
financial constraints.  It would be useful if a recommendation could be made to Ministers that 
developing countries and LDCs needed financial assis tance to allow their experts from the capital to 
participate during the negotiations.  That particular  need had been reflected in the African Group's 
submission TN/TF/W/33.  The Core Group wanted t hose observations to be taken on board for the 
next draft.  
14. The representative of Canada  thanked the Chair for his Herculean efforts together with the 
Secretariat's assistance in putting the draft report toge ther.  Canada was aware of what an extremely 
challenging task it represented to respond to Me mbers' request for preparing such a draft.  
15. Canada believed that the draft covered a ll essential elements on which Members needed 
Ministerial guidance.  Canada recognized that th ere were many diverging views among Members on 
specific aspects, even if Members shared the co mmon goal of ensuring progress in the negotiations.  
That made Canada even more grateful for the Chai r's efforts to present a draft report that would be 
acceptable to all. 
16. Canada certainly would have preferred to see so me issues treated differently in the report.  
For example, Canada would have liked to have seen clearer language on the initiation of text-based 
negotiations, immediately after Hong Kong.  Nevert heless, Canada recognized that not all Members 
shared that view, with several Members emphasizing at  the last meeting their interest in retaining the  TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 3 
 
 
possibility to bring forward new proposals which they thought might be compromised by such 
language.  Against that backdrop and despite the reservations Canada had with respect to a few 
specific elements, Canada was ready to accept the draf t report to the TNC on an "as is" basis.  Canada 
was taking that position in the spirit of compromise because it considered it important to maintain and consolidate the very positive and constructive negotiating environment Members had developed 
collectively under the Chair's lead ership.  However, should others insist on opening the text, Canada 
would need to revisit its position a nd might have to require that the text be improved to address its 
reservations as well.   
17. As for the NG's contribution to the Ministerial St atement, the Chair's draft report provided the 
foundation for the trade facilitation (TF) section of th e draft Ministerial Declaration.  Once the report 
was agreed by the NG, Canada assumed that  Ministers would be asked to endorse the 
recommendations contained in the report.  Canada also assumed that, at Hong Kong, Ministers would 
reaffirm the negotiating mandate contained in  Annex D of the July 2004 framework.   
18. The representative of Australia
 commended the Chair and the Secretariat on their excellent 
work in pulling together the draft report for the TN C.  It had been a remarkable effort given the 
limited time since the l ast meeting.  There was a strong intention to reflect the key interests and 
concerns of all Members across the Negotiating Group. 
19. A lot of care  had been taken when prepari ng the draft to reflect the necessary ambition for 
2006 in all aspects of the modalities, whether they re lated to rules, technical assistance, capacity 
building or S&D aspects to reinforce the equal role  they played in the negotiating mandate, confirm 
the work and encourage Members to move with suffi cient pace to conclude the negotiations within the 
overall deadline while, leaving space for new ideas an d for time to consider needs and priorities. 
20. However, there were parts that did not suit everybody's taste, and some Members would 
prefer to pick out certain aspects.  Australia, fo r instance, would prefer there not to be specific 
references to some Members' proposals when there were  not similar references to others.  Similarly, a 
reference to moving to text-based negotiations i mmediately in the New Year would have been 
preferable.  This was likely to be the case for ma ny other Members.  But the key was to have the 
varying elements of the product  put together in a wa y that created an overall balance.  As it stood, the 
text did have the necessary balance which was why Au stralia was prepared to accept it "as it stands", 
despite the fact that there were elements Australia  would really prefer to see included or taken out.  
21. However, if Members started to pick away the pieces or bring a shopping list of new 
ingredients, Australia, and many others, might be forced to consider whether the overall balance was 
affected.  The concern was that the balance could be lost and Members might end up with less for 
everyone. Australia therefore encouraged others  to adopt the report, and the necessary balance 
contained within as it stood. 
22. The representative of Zambia , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group,  expressed appreciation 
for the Chair's extensive efforts in guiding negotiatio ns towards a successful outcome.  Zambia found 
comfort in knowing the NG to be in capable hands .  The transparent manner in which the Chair had 
guided the negotiations was exemplary.  The LDCs were grateful for him having produced a draft 
Hong Kong report (TN/TF/W/72).  At the same time, the LDCs had a few basic concerns.  
23. First, Members should not try to burden Minist ers in Hong Kong with a report.  It did not 
contain anything they were asked to decide on.  What was contained in paragraph 7 relating to 
intensification of work was something Members woul d do in any case.  There were other elements in 
paragraph 5, mostly dealing with  process, paragraph 6, on capacity  building, and paragraph 7 on 
S&D, that Ministers had to decide on, but that had to be clearly spelt out. TN/TF/M/11 
Page 4  
 
24. Second, while the report was excellent for the TN C, the LDCs did not want to begin a process 
of agreed reports from the Chair, unless th e Chair wanted it to be that way.  
25. Third, Ministers should get a few clear pa ragraphs from the NGTF which outlined their 
instructions to the Group.  They would be getti ng such paragraphs from a ll other Negotiating Groups. 
26. Finally, Members should now get into the mode of discussing texts for the Hong Kong 
Ministerial.  The LDCs would authorize the Chair to prepare such a text.   
27. The Core Group had put forward some excellent ideas.  Zambia wished to supplement them 
with some concerns that were specific to LDCs.  As Members were aware, negotiations on Trade Facilitation (TF) were at the clarification stage on a number of measures proposed by Members and  there were many things on the table still to be cl arified.  For the LDCs, it took longer to understand 
their implications due to obvious capacity constraints.   In that context, the LDCs appreciated that the 
report rightly left room for Members to come up with new proposals. 
28. The LDCs' major concerns were clear.  Trade facilitation should enable LDCs to integrate 
into the multilateral trading system through enhanc ing their competitiveness and through removal of 
obstacles to trade.  The negotiations should also concentrate on clarification and improvement of 
relevant aspects of GATT Articles V, VIII and X that  were relevant for LDCs.  The modalities clearly 
expressed the special vulnerability of LDCs, and th e need to give special attention to them.  
Paragraph 6 of the draft report provided some measure of comfort to the LDCs, but it did not clearly enough reflect their needs and concerns.  The S&D provisions required for LDCs had not been fully 
captured, as was done in Annex D of the July text .  Technical assistance being provided by Members 
and the multilateral institutions had to be more  specific to the demands of the negotiations, 
particularly in implementing anything agreed upon.   Hence, there was a need to have a separate 
paragraph for the LDCs.  That paragraph should in corporate the elements from Annex D relevant to 
the LDCs, and also refer to paragraph 3.  TA&C B should have a prominent reflection (1) during the 
negotiations;  (2) for the assessment of needs and pr iorities;  and (3) for implementation.  Zambia 
hoped that these concerns would be reflected in the text put up for the Hong Kong Ministerial. 
29. While the LDCs acknowledged the reflection of the importance of TA&CB in paragraph 6 of 
the report, they wished to express their deep con cern that the report  recommended Members to move 
to text-based negotiations early next year.  The LD Cs were  concerned that without operationalizing 
TA&CB, they could not participate effectively in text-based negotiations early next year.  The LDCs 
were therefore of the view that TA&CB should be  operationalized expeditiously prior to the text-
based phase of the negotiations and that that should be reflected in the Chair's text.  Furthermore, they 
recommended that TA&CB for identifying needs a nd priorities be expeditiously provided and 
intensified prior to the text-based phase of the negotiations. 
30. Similarly, the LDCs would like to emphasize that infrastructure development would be 
necessary in order to implement obligations arising fro m Articles V, VIII and X.  On paragraph 6, the 
LDCs had concerns with regard to the last sentence of  the report.  Instead of that sentence, they would 
appreciate if it could be phrased as follows:  "Rec ognizing the assistance already being provided in 
that area, the Negotiating Group recommends that Me mbers, in particular developed ones, should 
continue to intensify their support in a comprehe nsive manner and on a long-term and sustainable 
basis backed by secure funding without any prej udice to the TA&CB obligations under Annex D". 
31.  Similarly, since Members were still in the cl arification stage and several measures had been 
proposed by Members towards that end, the proposed  language in line 7 of pa ragraph 2, which read, 
"and were building common ground on many asp ects of that negotiating mandate" should be 
rephrased to reflect the improved understanding of the negotiating mandate as  opposed to "building 
common ground".  The LDCs would also wish that the title for the list of elements be referenced as an 
indicative list and termed as measures that had been proposed.  TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 5 
 
 
32. The representative of Morocco , speaking on behalf of the African Group,  recalled that the 
African Group attached great importance to the issu e of trade facilitation and remained engaged in 
working in that area.  The African Group reaffirm ed the importance of A nnex D's S&DT and TA&CB 
components and was concerned about the report recomme nding the shift in work in that area towards 
a text-based negotiating mode without specifically  addressing the commensurate technical assistance 
and capacity building commitments.  That was in contra diction to the mandate contained in Annex D.   
33. In that regard, the African Group proposed th e following: concrete and quantifiable TA&CB 
commitments by the development partners must be re flected in the report, as well as the integration of 
a precise effective and operational S&D which had to be explicitly reflected in the text.  The 
opportunity of participating and/or making further proposals should not be foreclosed.  The African 
Group underscored the importance of TA&CB for an e ffective outcome in trade facilitation and also 
wished that the mentioned elements be take n into consideration in the next draft.  
34. The representative of Barbados  said that the discussions and negotiations over the past few 
months had unfolded in a structured and construc tive manner allowing countries of all levels of 
development and capacity to participate both thro ugh interventions in the meetings and through 
tabling a large number of proposals on the three Articles, on TA&CB, on S&D, on country 
experiences and on positions of principle.   
35. Barbados was a proponent of the small economies work programme, which was to 
acknowledge, in particular, the proposals tabled by those countries either individually or with other 
interested Members.  Barbados hoped that the inte rest of those Members continued to be taken on 
board. 
36. The Chair and the Secretariat were to be commended not only for the way in which the 
discussions had been led and supported but also for th e draft report produced.  Mu ch of it was factual, 
but even in the simple enunciation of facts, it was important that the report did not prejudge or pre-
determine a post-Hong Kong Group, which had not been fo rmally agreed to by all.  In light of that, 
Barbados concurred with the specific textual reco mmendations made by the Philippines on behalf of 
the Core Group.  Barbados might also support Za mbia's position on TA.  In particular, Barbados 
recommended consideration be given to having a cour t and court audit on the provision of TA before 
moving directly onto te xt-based negotiations. 
37. It was important that all elements of the nego tiating mandate be reflected in the report in an 
equal manner.  Hence, the S&D element should be in cluded as a stand-alone item in the list of issues 
in section I.  It was recognized th at some Members had recommended that that list be deleted but in 
the event that no consensus was reached on that, an d that it remained, it was important that the list 
reflected the compilation document and that it was specifically stated as being illustrative and non-
exhaustive.  It was Barbados's understanding that th e list would provide an opportunity to take stock 
of the areas discussed so far rather than be a pre- determined list of issues for future negotiations. 
38. There remained some issues which certain delega tions considered to perhaps still be outside 
the NG's mandate.  One of the more integral pro cesses in the discussions, which had been reflected in 
both formal and informal discussions amongst delega tions, was the need to discuss and formulize a 
coordinating mechanism for the identification, fina ncing and delivery of TA&CB in a sustainable 
manner during and after the negotia tions.  Barbados was particular ly pleased to see specific mention 
of that in the draft report.   
39. The representative of Singapore  expressed his delegation's appreciation for the factual and 
balanced content of the draft report.  Obviously, it was not perfect, and Singapore would like to have 
further strengthening of a number of elements.  Howe ver, at the present stage of work, barely a month 
before the Hong Kong Ministerial, Singapore also wa nted to see how it could be helpful to the process TN/TF/M/11 
Page 6  
 
and take a more reasonable and pragmatic appro ach.  The NG had made a lot of progress with over 
sixty proposals having been tabled on various aspects, including on TA&CB.  
40. Obviously, there would always be scope to contin ue the clarification of the various proposals 
that had been tabled so far.  However, Members sh ould also strive to push the negotiations forward.  
In that connection, Singapore agreed with the report's practical recommendation that the NG moved 
into focused drafting early enough in 2006 and in to text-based negotiations.  Apart from TA&CB, 
there should certainly also be parallel work on S&D.   In that regard, Singapore concurred with the 
report's recommendation on S&D in paragraph 7.  Si ngapore had offered some suggestions on S&D in 
its proposals relating to the three relevant GATT Articles.  Singapore looked forward to further 
suggestions from Members on that area when Members resumed work early next year. 
41. All in all, Singapore was of the view that, a lthough not perfect, the text was broadly in the 
ball park covering all aspects of the TF mandate.  While perhaps requiring some fine-tuning, there 
should be no major surgery to the draft report. 
42. The representative of Argentina
 thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for their efforts in 
submitting the text which largely accurately refl ected what Members had discussed at the last 
meeting.  Argentina understood the draft to be not just a factual text but to contain recommendations 
which were made not under the Chair's exclusive responsibility, but under the responsibility of all 
Members.  That was therefore the way in which one  had to approach that document, to understand the 
views of other delegations  on what were the possibilities of reopening the text.   It was in that spirit 
that Argentina wished to express a few minor c onsiderations it wanted to see reflected.  
43. With regard to the reference in paragraph 4,  5th line, to "without prejudice to individual 
Member's positions on individual proposals contained in that document, a list of elements drawn from 
it is provided below to facilitate further negotiations ", Argentina was of the view that that list was 
merely of an illustrative nature.  It could nevert heless be an indication for establishing a list of 
elements that must be focused on in that context.   There was an issue Argentina considered to be 
important.  When drawing up a list of measures fo r improving and clarifying Articles V, VIII and X 
of the GATT, there was an index, containing all subheadings.  But when looking at the last three 
titles, there were no subtitles, whereas in  sectio n III, on cross-cutting submissions, there were 
subtitles (identification of needs and priorities, TA&CB and multiple areas).  Argentina had a concern 
with regard to making a selective reading on some of the subheadings. 
44. In part 3, multiple areas, the first bullet poi nt was termed "cost assessment", followed by a 
second one on "inter-agency cooperation".  These we re two subheadings contained in TN/TF/W/33.  
But the third and fourth bullet points, "inventory"  and "timing and sequencing" had been taken from 
communication TN/TF/W/72.  That was selective.  One had to be very careful.  Either all subheadings from various communications under that heading were  included or the communications they had been 
taken from had to be reflected.  TN/TF/W/41, for ex ample, was not indicated at all in the text.  
Argentina did not have any problem with identifying needs and priorities and its use but considered it 
necessary to correct the bullet points under the various headings, in particular heading three, "multiple 
areas". 
45. The second comment related to paragraph 7.  For Argentina, that was particularly important, 
because it contained recommendations.  The first part  of paragraph 7 stated that "the Negotiating 
Group also recommends it deepen and intensify nego tiations on the issue of S&D, with a view to 
arriving at S&D provisions that are precise, effective and operational and that allow for necessary 
flexibility in implementing the results of the nego tiations".  The statement regarding allowing for 
necessary flexibility in implementing the results of th e negotiations had to be more explicit and more 
precise as it had to reflect what flexibility was estab lished under Annex D, sayin g that extent and time 
of entering into commitments shall be related to the capacities of developing and least-developed  TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 7 
 
 
countries to meet those commitments.  That statemen t had to be very clear and should not leave room 
for ambiguity.  One could use the same words as were used in Annex D, for example.   
46. One also had to be more explicit regarding the second part of paragraph 7, speaking about 
"reaffirming the negotiating mandate in this regard, especially para graphs 2 and 3 of Annex D".  
When talking about paragraphs 2 and 3 of Annex D, there should be links to the elements of the 
various paragraphs of Annex D.   One should therefore include a reference to "reaffirming the 
negotiating mandate in that regard, especially the links between paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 
Annex D".  
47. As for the date, it was a good suggestion to clar ify what had been said more generally about 
there not having been any specific date set.  Arge ntina was not sure whether the present forum was the 
place to establish when text-based negotiations woul d begin or what the necessary timeframe would 
be. That was a cross-cutting issue which had to be addressed in other WTO bodies as well.  
48. The Chair  explained that the general approach to  selecting headings/subheadings and bullet 
points mentioned in the list had been to simply take the headings and subheadings chosen by 
Members in their papers and reflected in the comp ilation document. That had generally worked well, 
except for the multiple areas section where the pape rs reflected under that heading often did not 
contain any subtitles.  To avoid what he had consider ed to be an unwanted result of some sections not 
having any bullet points at all, a slightly different a pproach had to be adopted.  In an attempt to be 
helpful and after much reflection and internal deba te, starting from the goal of trying not to "invent" 
anything that was not contained in those submission s, a decision had been taken to pick up essential 
points from the reflected papers and list them as bulle t points in order to do full justice to Member's 
proposals in that area.    
49. The representative of Argentina  clarified his point to be that one should establish criteria in 
the sense of either putting bullet points capturing al l subheadings from those communications or not 
putting any at all.  It was useful to have them fo r the reasons just explained by the Chair.  But it was 
unbalanced to have two subheadings from one comm unication and two or even none from others.  It 
was not a matter of document TN/TF/W/41.  TN/TF/W/62 from Chinese Taipei was also not 
reflected.  That was Argentina's point. 
50. The representative of Brazil  said that the draft report was a very good first approximation of 
what to present to the TNC.  On average, it was quite a good text.  The Chair had done a good job in reflecting the factual part of the NG's work and se tting out the major points at stake. The report could 
be perfected in that there were a few elemen ts which were very important to Brazil.  
51. First, paragraph 2 mentioned some papers.  Br azil wished to suggest  that all papers be 
mentioned in order not to discriminate some in favour of others and to complete the list.  
52. As for paragraph 4, the Chair had already take n care of some related concerns.  As for its 
reference to "Without prejudice to individual Member 's positions on individual proposals contained in 
that document", one could perhaps be even more careful and indicate that the list was just an 
indicative one.  Everybody agreed that one did not know whether there would be commitments on 
each and every element listed.  That was one of th e questions Members had to address next year.  The 
fact that it was an indicative list should be made as clear possible.  
53. Brazil appreciated the Chair's clarification on the methodology the Secretariat had used in 
compiling the list which was definitely adequate.  Br azil also agreed with the difficulties involved but 
with respect to the question of cross-cutting subm issions, specifically those listed under the heading 
"multiple areas", Brazil had difficulties in finding titl es.  Perhaps it was possible to revisit that section 
and to try to reflect the proposals in another way, ad ding to the four bullet points already listed.  One TN/TF/M/11 
Page 8  
 
proposal Brazil particularly had in mind was the proposal it had co-sponsored, but there were also 
other proposals which had elements that could be incorporated.  
54. As for paragraph 7, which wa s extremely important to Brazil, the report, while rightly 
displaying Annex D's elements, did not reflect the interconnection between those elements as 
adequate as Brazil would like it to.  Brazil believed that those linkages were the conceptual basis of 
Members' work and therefore was concerned that if  those interconnections we re not reflected in a 
more accurate way, Members ran the risk of giving Ministers the wrong impression that Annex D had somehow been reinterpreted to the detriment of the interrelationships exis ting between S&D, TA&CB 
and the new commitments. 
55. These linkages gave Members the level of comf ort required for negotiating new obligations.  
That was the reason why they should somehow be refe rred to in paragraph 7.  It was not a question of 
picking and choosing elements, but one of pr eserving a very delicate balance between new 
commitments, implementation concerns and S&D.   That was the reason why Brazil supported the 
language suggestion made by Argentina to add some thing like "taking account that the extent and 
timing of entering into commitments shall be relate d to the implementation capacities of developing 
and least-developed Members" in the first senten ce of paragraph 7 after the words "effective and 
operational".  That was a quotation from Annex D which addressed and specified the flexibility 
mentioned in the general language suggested by the Chair.  
56. In the second phrase of that paragraph, Brazil would also support the suggestion made by 
Argentina to insert something such as "recognizi ng the linkages among the elements of Annex D, 
especially those contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, the Negotiating Group recommends that 
further negotiations on S&DT built on input presented by  Members in the context of measures related 
to GATT Articles V, VIII and X, and in their pr oposals of a cross-cutting nature on S&D".  Those 
suggestions were important for Brazil as they re flected a very delicate balance which gave the 
necessary comfort for continuing with the negotiations .  That was why they should be incorporated.  
57. The representative of Japan
 said that the draft report to the TNC accurately reflected the NG's 
discussions to date.  The draft was well balanced in  its content, and had taken into account all views 
expressed in the plenary session two weeks ago. 
58. They included the positive assessment of the NG 's work based on the negotiating mandate in 
Annex D and gave necessary guidance for Members'  work after Hong Kong, without prejudice to 
Members' future stance in the negotiations and to  their further contributions.  Another important 
element was the reaffirmation of the importance of S&D and TA for CB in developing countries and 
LDCs.  Although the reference to some elements wa s not entirely satisfactory to Japan, such as that 
referring to the timing of entering into text-b ased negotiations, other Members were also not 
comfortable with reference to other elements in the draft, which showed the draft report to be 
structured in a way that stroke a delicate balan ce among those differing views.  Based on that, and 
given the importance of continuously engaging in  the negotiations after Hong Kong in the Group's 
current constructive atmosphere, Japan accepted th e report as it stood as the report to the TNC.   
59. The representative of Venezuela  said that the report reflected the work Members had been 
doing since the beginning of the NG.  Venezuela appr eciated the transparent and inclusive approach 
adopted in preparing the report.  As a Member of the Core Group, Venezuela supported the statement by the Philippines with regard to the content of the report.  Venezuela further wished to add the 
following comments.  
60.   With regard to paragraph 4, the list of me asures proposed should also include the reference 
that the measures were only illustrative and not definitive.  Venezuela recognized the progress that 
had been made, but a deeper analysis was required of the costs that developing countries and LDCs  TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 9 
 
 
would have to bear, as well as of how to apply S&D elements and other elements contained in 
Annex D. 
61. With regard to S&D, Venezuela was of the view  that the discussions did not clearly reflect the 
measures that might be adopted.  It was not enough to say that there would be allowance for flexibility.  What was needed was to make sure th at they were operative in the negotiating mandate.  
Venezuela  supported the proposals made by Argentin a and Brazil in terms of changing the language.   
With regard to TA&CB, Venezuela understood that  the identification of requirements included the 
identification of needs and priorities.  In the last two months, work had begun on that matter at least in 
the Core Group.  Since that work was very much  at a preliminary stage Venezuela, therefore, 
considered it still premature to talk a bout the beginning of these discussions. 
62. Ministers should recognize the important progress made in these negotiations but it would be 
more realistic to ensure that each element of the mandate was considered in a balanced way.  One 
should ensure that one did not s uperpose one element over another. 
63. The representative of Nigeria
 supported the statement by Morocco on behalf on the African 
Group and by the Philippines on behalf of the Core Group.  Nigeria further wished to underscore 
some issues which were particularly important to  Nigeria regarding WTO work on trade facilitation. 
64. The draft report to the TNC covered all aspects of the mandate.  Nigeria supported the basic 
thrust of the report.  Nigeria placed emphasis on th e need for provisions on TA&CB.  That was an 
important area of the work and would remain so for many countries for them to be able to participate 
and to implement any potential future outcome.  Ni geria also wished to un derscore the need for 
provisions on S&D that were precise, effective and op erational.  The list of elements contained at the 
end of the report should be regarded as illustrative and non-exhaustive.  Nige ria had taken note of the 
Chair's explanations regarding work next year and the commencement of text-based negotiations as 
well as of his stressing that the report be a collectiv e report of the NG as opposed to one by the Chair. 
65. The representative of Hong Kong, China  (HKC) said that the objective of the report was to 
recognize the good progress made in the NG and to en able Members to intensify work to have a 
timely conclusion of text-based  negotiations on all aspects of the mandate next year. 
66. Despite the good work by everybody, many t asks and challenges still lay ahead.  Members 
had to work harder and in a more forceful manner to achieve their objectives.  The draft Hong Kong report was a very good piece of work.  However, in  some areas there were still considerable gaps 
compared with the original expectations of HKC in  terms of level of intens ity and consolidation as 
well as in terms of timing.  Hong Kong, China, w ould like to see the stage of text-based negotiations 
start as early as possible, hopefully immediately after the Hong Kong Ministerial.  
67. Nevertheless, HKC apprec iated that the current draft repor t captured the right and workable 
balance of elements and that it contained a cred ible package for the Hong Kong Ministerial and 
beyond.  On that understanding, and in the spirit of cooperation, Hong Kong, China, could go along 
with the current draft report as it was.  It was not  a perfect text but a workable one to take Members 
forward in the limited time available.  Despite all the different suggestions proposed by Members, it 
was very important to emphasize the balance in that process.  If the current text were to be modified, 
Hong Kong, China, would have to suggest changes as well.  
68. The representative of Malaysia
 associated her delegation with the statement made by the 
Philippines on behalf of the Core Group.  
69. Malaysia supported the general thrust of the report presented in TN/TF/W/72 which was 
balanced and reflected the progress achieved so far.  Malaysia noted the focus on what needed to be 
done post-Hong Kong, particularly in paragraphs 5,  6 and 7, and the sequencing of measures.  The TN/TF/M/11 
Page 10  
 
Malaysian delegation was happy with the emphasis on what had to be done next year on identifying 
effective and sustainable TA&CB for developing countries and, particularly, LDCs. Those were 
important elements embedded in the modalities contai ned in Annex D.  Malaysia also fully supported 
the call in paragraph 6 for secure  funding by developed Members. 
70. The representative of Peru
 said that at a time when negotiations in other areas of the Round 
were not progressing the way they should, it was alwa ys good to see that work in the NGTF was more 
concrete and was being approached in a more r esponsible manner.  That should allow Members to 
come up with specific results at the end of the R ound, which might not be the case in other areas.  The 
draft text was quite well balanced and reflected the wo rk carried out to date and indicated what future 
negotiations should be. 
71. Of course, any text could be im proved.  Peru would have liked to see other issues of greater 
specificity such as text-based negotiations at the be ginning of 2006.  But, overall, the text was good 
enough as it was. It reflected a degree of neutrality and struck a balance of everything Members had 
communicated.  Peru was ready to adopt it as it was.  
72. The representative of Moldova , speaking also on behalf of the Kyrgyz Republic , said that the 
negotiations on TF constituted a major issue for thos e countries, taking into consideration the benefits 
of efficiency and transparency in trade flows.  Ne vertheless, the limited capacities of their delegations 
had not allowed them to participate fully in th e TF negotiations.  Moldova and the Kyrgyz Republic 
appreciated the draft report.  While the text lo oked very balanced, th ey wished, however, to 
emphasize that it did not mention specific concerns  of small low-income countries in transition. 
73. That was why they intended to submit to the NG a formal proposal on behalf of some small 
low-income countries in transition.  The objective economic indicators clearly showed the level of 
development of those economies to be comparable to  low-income developing countries and, in fact, to 
many LDCs.  In that context, Moldova and the Kyrgyz Republic wished to draw attention to 
paragraph 38 of the Doha Declaration, as well as to  paragraph 1(d) and othe r sections of the General 
Council's Decision of 1 August 2004, which underlined  the difficulties faced by small, low-income 
economies in transition in their efforts to im plement economic and trade policy reforms.  
74. Those countries were really favourable and suppor tive with regard to the clarification and 
improvement of GATT Articles V, VIII and X.  A more operational Article V was especially important for their trade competitiveness since a significant proportion of their trade depended on 
efficient transit operations due to the fact that th e countries were effectively landlocked.  However, 
like many developing countries, small, low-income  economies in transition had certain concerns that 
commitments resulting from the TF negotiations might go beyond their implementation capacities. 
75. Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Annex D c ontained comprehensive provisions on S&D and 
TA&CB for developing and least-developed countries.   Furthermore, paragraph 38 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration instructed that priority be accorded to small, vulnerable and transitional 
economies in the area of TA&CB.  On the other hand,  for small, low-income countries in transition, 
though the level of development was quite low, no specific flexibilities an d provisions had been  
agreed so far.  Moldova and the Kyrgyz Republic therefore wished to request the Negotiating Group 
on Trade Facilitation to agree that all Members whic h were small, low-income countries in transition 
be also granted special flexibilities with regard to trade facilitation to be defined in the negotiations, 
and be provided with adequate TA&CB, in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Annex D.   
They hoped for their proposal to be favourably cons idered and its content included in the negotiating 
modalities to be agreed so that those countries could really feel the benefits of the WTO Membership 
as stated in paragraph 49 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 11 
 
 
76. The representative of Jamaica  associated her delegation with the statement made by the 
Philippines on behalf of the Core Group.  Jamaica ap preciated the continued transparent and inclusive 
approach adopted to the preparation of the report to Ministers in Hong Kong. 
77. Jamaica had indicated the previous month the im portance of Ministers being informed of the 
generally very positive assessment of the NG's work.  That had been captured in the draft report.  
Jamaica had also taken note that some emphasis had been placed on the development dimension of 
the mandate contained in Annex D, including on the commitments in respect of the provision of 
TA&CB and the linkage to implementing the results of these negotiations, as well as regarding flexibility to the provisions of S&D, which had al so been emphasized as important for Ministers to 
pronounce on in Hong Kong, in order to ensure fidelity to the mandate.  
78. Jamaica, therefore, just  wished to make two brief points.  In paragraph 4, the second sentence 
introducing the list of elements should be clarifie d to reflect the fact that the list was merely 
illustrative and that it should not be assumed that a ll elements contained therein would be the subject 
of text-based negotiations.  Secondly, Jamaica wished  to reiterate one of the key points made by the 
Philippines on behalf of the Core Group.  There was urgent need for the participation of capital-based 
officials, particularly customs officials, in the Gene va negotiations and urgent need for small, targeted 
financial assistance in that regard.  For some Members, that could be one of the most important decisions taken by Ministers in Hong Kong. 
79. The representative of Kenya
 associated his delegation with the statement made by the 
Philippines on behalf of the Core Group and by Moro cco on behalf of the African Group.  Kenya had 
a few comments to make. 
80. First, paragraph 2 of the report had high lighted that Members had advanced their 
understanding of the measures in question and were building common ground on many elements 
proposed by Members.  That would give the impression that Members had reached a high level of convergence on the elements that had been proposed , although Members were still in the process of 
understanding and clarifying those elements  with  a view to narrowing the differences that might 
exist.  Paragraph 2 should therefore be  refreshed to capture those views.  
81. Paragraph 4 indicated that progress in the negotiations aimed at developing a set of 
multilateral commitments on all elements of the mandate.   Kenya saw that as prejudging the possible format of the final result of the negotiations when  the modalities contained in  Annex D were open to 
various forms of outcomes.  There might be need for re-phrasing, perhaps by referring to the progress 
in relation to the mandate contained in Annex D.  
82. Paragraph 4 also seemed to recommend a focused drafting mode early next year  so as to 
allow time for text-based negotiations.  Kenya request ed some balance on that point.  There were two 
view points on this aspect.  Some delegations ha d expressed a preference for text-based negotiations 
early next year while others had indicated that they were still assessing the implications of some of the 
proposals that they wanted to allow time for early next year to further discuss them.   It could 
therefore be  important to state the two views in the report rather than trying to recommend text-based 
negotiations, which was too early.  Kenya certainly u nderstood the clarification given by the Chair but 
had difficulties as it had clearly stated the need for further discussions to understand the implication of 
some of the elements proposed.  It was also nec essary to see clearly on the issue of TA&CB before 
thinking of text-based  negotiations.   
83. Paragraph 5 mentioned the elements contained in  the Secretariat's compilation.  It would be 
important to put some disclaimers there to indicate that the elements constituted an illustrative list of 
possible measures to improve and clarify the three Artic les.  It was also important to indicate that the 
elements did not prejudge the outcome of the negotiati ons either in substance or in form.  That would 
raise the level of comfort for some Members.  TN/TF/M/11 
Page 12  
 
84. On paragraph 6, Kenya took note of the recomme ndations made in the report regarding the 
need to reaffirm, reinforce and to make TA&CB operationa l.  In view of the fact that that was an issue  
on which Members had made the least progress, befo re making those recommendations it would also 
be important to mention that some Members had expressed a lack of progress in that area.  
85. The Chair 
explained that the reference to multilateral commitments was one that not only 
related to new rules, but also referred to S&D and TA&CB.  That was why the balance was there. If 
the words "multilateral commitments" were taken out, that would also remove it with respect to the 
areas of S&D and TA&CB. 
86. On the question of text-based negotiations, th ere the reference was to "early enough in 2006 
so as to allow for a timely conclusion of text-based  negotiations".  It was therefore not without 
qualification. Furthermore, even the Core Group had recognized the fact that a focussed drafting 
mode would have to happen in 2006.  
87. As for the wish to add the word "illustrative" to the list, he recalled that the text contained the 
explicit reference to the list being "without prejudi ce to individual Member's positions on individual 
proposals", given also assurances as to the possibility of submitting new proposals.  The concern was 
therefore taken care of.     
88. The representative of Kenya  said that, while understanding the clarification given on 
paragraph 4 with respect to developing a set of multilateral commitments, it was likely to be 
interpreted differently by different Members de pending on the element looked at. That made it 
important to refer to the mandate in Annex D.  That could bring the balance Kenya wished to see. 
89. The Chair  clarified that by expressly referring to multilateral commitments on all elements of 
the mandate , the text was very clear and should not gi ve room for different interpretations.  
90. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago  expressed appreciation for the Chair having 
conducted the negotiations in a transparent and c onstructive manner and also wished to commend the 
Secretariat for the draft report.  Trinidad and T obago associated itself with the intervention made by 
the Philippines on behalf of the Core Group and belie ved that, in general, the draft report addressed 
the key issues as outlined in Annex D. Trinidad and Tobago therefore wished to raise only a few 
concerns. 
91. While the issue of TA&CB was addressed in the report, there was need to underscore the 
importance of having concrete proposals on TA&CB, wh ich had so far been absent.  In that regard, 
Trinidad and Tobago acknowledged the need for in creased work on identifying needs and priorities as 
highlighted in paragraph 5, and was working to ensu re an adequate level of that aspect of the NG's 
mandate.  As highlighted by the Philippines,  the phrase "developing a set of multilateral 
commitments" should be qualified in light of the fact that the negotiations had not yet gone beyond 
the clarification stage. 
92. With respect to the listing of elements, there ha d to be a clear indication that the listing was 
indicative in nature.  Trinidad and Tobago further wished to suggest that the issues of needs and 
priorities identification and TA&CB be given their own major headings rather than be subsumed 
under cross-cutting submissions which would highlight the importance attributed to these areas by a significant number of the Membership.  However, not e had been taken of earlier interventions on that 
issue and Trinidad and Tobago would be flexible on the matter. 
93. Finally, making S&D operational was imperative for Trinidad and Tobago which therefore 
supported the suggestions by Argentin a and Brazil in that regard.    TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 13 
 
 
94. The representative of Korea  said that the draft report served well as a good summary of the 
state of play and good guidance for future work.  The report, in general, contained a balanced 
description of all areas mandated by Annex D' s work programme, including S&D and TA&CB.  
95. Korea wished to express support for the draft as it was, although it was not sufficient to 
satisfy all Members, including Korea, in terms of  addressing the various elements under discussion.  
96. At the same time, Korea had concerns over an y attempt to break the delicate overall balance 
of that text by further weakening its words and ph rases.  Korea was not fully satisfied with the present 
text, since it lacked a clear picture of the work  programme after Hong Kong and simply outlined the 
measures to improve and clarify without more detailed content and direction. 
97. However, in the spirit of keeping the construc tive atmosphere and moving forward after Hong 
Kong, Korea wished to express full support fo r going along with the text as it stood.  
98. The representative of Pakistan  expressed appreciation for the way in which the Chair had 
conducted the proceedings in the NG.  While agreeing that the draft was not perfect, it provided a good foundation to build upon.  At the same time, Members should not shy away from trying to improve it, if possible, as the future outcome of the negotiations would be based upon it.  Members 
had to continue work with the same exemplary spirit shown over the course of the previous year, 
placing emphasis on discussing matters in the spirit of mutual benefit rather than negotiating country 
positions. 
99. While Pakistan was supportive of the intent and content of the suggested draft, it wished to 
make certain observations and suggestions for amendment.  While acknowledging the valuable 
contribution made by the authors of TN/TF/W/33,  36, 37 and 68, which were the four documents 
mentioned in the report out of a total number of more  than fifty proposals, Pakistan wished to suggest 
that for the sake of uniformity no document number be mentioned except for that of the Secretariat's 
compilation.   The  two sentences mentioning specifi c document numbers could therefore be deleted.  
100. Paragraph 6 concerning TA&CB seemed to l ack mention of the objective of TA&CB to 
enhance the implementation capacities of developing a nd least-developed countries.  It also failed to 
mention the linkage between implementation capac ities and binding commitments.  It had to be 
reaffirmed that where Members lacked the n ecessary capacities, implementation would not be 
required as mentioned in paragraph 6 of Annex D. Paragraph 6 of th e report must specifically mention 
that. 
101. Building on Argentina's suggestion to add some bullet points to the "multiple areas" section, 
Pakistan wished to propose the following points: (i) Pledging mechanism for TA&CB and funding; 
(ii) WTO Trade Facilitation Committee to endorse Me mbers' obligations and commitments, and (iii) 
multilateral endorsement of implementation capaciti es.  These were not new ideas, but had been 
extracted from the proposal Pakistan had made with Switzerland in TN/TF/W/63. 
102. Pakistan also supported the proposal to consid er the list of written measures to improve and 
clarify GATT Articles V, VIII and X to be an i ndicative one. With respect to TA&CB beyond the 
negotiating phase (section III, sub-paragraph 2) Pa kistan suggested the following additions: Support 
for creating and enhancing implem entation capacities of developing countries and LDCs and review 
of the effectiveness of TA&CB and its availability to support implementation of agreed measures.   
103. The representative of Rwanda
 appreciated the efforts in developing the draft Hong Kong 
report and the exercise of a high degree of transp arency and inclusiveness in the process.  Rwanda 
associated itself with the statements made by the Philippines on behalf of the Core Group, Morocco 
on behalf of the African Group and Zambia on behalf of the LDCs.  Overall, Rwanda appreciated the TN/TF/M/11 
Page 14  
 
fact that the report had attempted to provide Member s with a balanced reflection of the status of the 
NG's work.  Rwanda simply wished  to emphasize the following elements. 
104. First, on paragraph 2, the phrase "building on  common ground" was an overestimation and 
should therefore be deleted.  S econdly, Rwanda acknowle dged and welcomed the importance attached 
in the report to the need for improved identification of needs and priorities as well as TA&CB.  To the 
extent that Rwanda had co-sponsored the proposal on Article V it considered itself to have offensive 
interest in that particular Article.  However,  Rwanda noted the importance of TA&CB for many 
Members to implement Rwanda's Article V proposal and therefore made that recommendation with regard to TA&CB which it wanted to see reflected in the text.   
105. TA&CB had to be intensified and expedited during the negotiations, including through the 
identification of needs and prioriti es, as well as through the participa tion of capital-based experts. The 
operationalization of TA&CB, including through de fining a coordination mechanism, was key in 
facilitating the next phase of negotiations which was, as a number of   Members preferred, a text-based 
phase.  Once taken up, those elements would very  much address certain discomfort some Members 
might have and ensure effective participati on in the next phase of the negotiations.   
106. The representative of Chile
 said that while the report was not perfect, it nevertheless 
contained all the elements in a balanced way.   
107. Chile had co-sponsored TN/TF/W/41 which mentioned the links between the various 
elements of Annex D and suggested that discussi ons on technical assistance and S&D treatment 
should be developed in a dynamic, continuous way in negotiating disciplines.  While the report could 
be improved by making those linkages explicit, Chile was of the view that the current draft and the 
negotiating mandate contained in A nnex D allowed Members to work in the right direction.    
108. With regard to the list at the end of the docume nt, Chile considered it u seful to help focus the 
work not only in Geneva, but also in capitals.  Ch ile very much appreciated that the list had been 
drafted, but it should be made clear that it was an  illustrative list and not an exhaustive one.  Another 
minor point that could easily be introduced was the link between paragraph 4, referring to the 
compilation of the Secretariat, and the list at the end of the report.  Finally, with regard to the 
reference to starting text-based negotiations, there could be a link to that being dependent on the 
overall conclusion of the Round.  If the Round was to  conclude in 2006, one had to start the text-
based phase of the negotiations as soon as possible.   
109. The representative of Nicaragua  supported proposal TN/TF/W/41and informed that his 
delegation had indicated its intention to co-sponsor the document.      
110. As for the draft report, Nicaragua was of the view that the language in paragraph 2 on the 
factual presentation of the proposals should be neut ral.  Some proposals had been referred to while 
others had not.  Similarly, some connotations were  given with regard to some proposals while that 
was not the case for others.  Nicaragua wished to ha ve a more neutral language in paragraph 2.   
111. With regard to paragraph 4, Nicaragua ec hoed the sentiments expressed by others, in 
particular Brazil and Argentina, on the reference to the proposals being submitted as an indicative list.   
112. With regard to paragraph 6, Ni caragua considered it to be an issue of semantics when talking   
about S&D treatment.  It had to be made clear whether the Annex on Trade Facilitation was part of 
the Trade Facilitation negotiations itself or whethe r it had linkages with negotiations on Special and 
Differential treatment.  There was a reference to S&DT  in paragraph 6, which at the end also talked 
about reflecting the needs and priorities of deve loping countries.  And there, it was necessary to 
clarify something important from the very beginning.    TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 15 
 
 
113. What Nicaragua was  concerned about were the commitm ents that arose from the Trade 
Facilitation negotiations and how states had to meet them.   Technical assistance for those 
negotiations, and the responsibility to present negotia ting positions were the responsibilities of states.  
That did not mean that TA was not valid and usef ul, but Members had to analyze whether technical 
assistance was necessary as a pre-co ndition for participating in the negotiations.  All Members 
recognized the merits of Trade Facilitation as such.  Therefore, in paragraph 6, it was proposed that 
the needs and priorities of developing countries should be stated at the very beginning in order to ensure their consideration as something very important for states.   
114. With regard to paragraph 7, Nicaragua suppor ted the proposals from Brazil and Argentina.  
Nicaragua agreed that one had to be more specific  about flexibility.  If the other negotiations on S&D 
were linked with S&D treatment in Trade Facilitati on, there were important elements contained in 
some proposals on S&D which were different.   Paragraph 7 had to be more specific.  Paragraphs 4, 5 
and 6 of Annex D had to be mentioned. Also, the negotiations dealing with S&D treatment should be 
linked with disciplines, but that could give rise to confusion if one mixed the multilateral 
commitments with S&D treatment.  With respect to  the last sentence of paragraph 7 which talked 
about the context, it was important to avoid mixi ng up S&D treatment with the context of measures 
related to GATT commitments.   
115. The draft report was a good starting point which coul d, nevertheless, be made more perfect.   
116. The representative of Switzerland
 said that her delegation supported the general thrust of the 
report.  Most of the elements suggested at the l ast meeting were reflected in the draft text, while 
others, which were important to Switzerland, had not been taken up.   Switzerland recognized that not 
all elements suggested by all Members could be refl ected in the report.  Consequently, the Chair had 
to make choices.  In that spirit, Switzerland would not insist that all of its elements be taken up. 
117. Switzerland saw the report to be a mix of a factual report on the progress made so far and 
guidance for future work after Hong Kong.  Therefor e, Switzerland was of the view that any qualifier 
of a submission should be made on equal terms.   Switzerland had some difficulties with seeing  
merely a few submissions mentioned.  Either all we re mentioned or none of them were.  For the area 
of technical assistance, for instance, one shou ld either mention TN/TF/W/33, TN/TF/W/56, 
TN/TF/W/41, TN/TF/W/62 and TN/TF/W/63 or none of those documents.     
118. Regarding paragraph 4, Switzerland appreciated the explanation given by the Chair on the 
multilateral commitments concerning all elements of the mandate.  Switzerland believed that to be a 
key statement of the report.  Switzerland also wish ed to echo what Argentina had said regarding the 
list of elements.  The list of elements under head ing III seemed selective.  Switzerland supported the 
statement made by Pakistan suggesting  some of the el ements that could be added.  With regard to the 
multiple areas section (III.3), some of the bu llet points stemmed from Switzerland's submission 
TN/TF/W/63.  Switzerland wished to suggest, as "Inve ntory" stood in the context of "Inventory of 
trade facilitation measures", that that point was ta ken care of under I.  With regard to timing and 
sequencing, that sentence should be complemented by "timing and sequencing of the implementation 
of measures".   
119. Regarding paragraph 7, Switzerland supported Ar gentina's point that the language "allow for 
necessary flexibility in implementing the results of the negotiations", could be read in a different 
manner than Annex D.  The language should therefor e be more explicit.  The present language could 
indeed convey the impression that Members had b een revisiting Annex D since July 2004 which was 
not the case.  While picking and choosing among the elements of Annex D was a sensitive action,  
Switzerland believed that the flexibility mentioned by the report was more adequately reflected by 
language contained in paragra ph 2 of the Annex, as had been suggested by Brazil.   TN/TF/M/11 
Page 16  
 
120. Finally, Switzerland agreed that the report c ould be a good basis for drafting the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration, but thought that Members had to have enough time to work on that text, taking into account the widespread sensitivities amongst the Membership.   
121. The representative of Nepal
 commended the Chair for bringing out a generally balanced 
report.  Nepal associated itself with the statemen t made by Zambia on behalf of the LDC Group and 
also supported the statement by the Philippines on be half of the Core Group.  Nepal appreciated that 
the report rightly left room for new proposals which would be helpful for countries with a low level of 
capacity like Nepal.  As negotiations were still at a clarification stage, measures reflected in the report 
should be taken as illustrative ones.    
122. TA&CB were very important for many countri es.  The operationalization of TA&CB was of 
much significance for Nepal and was important duri ng the negotiations for the assessment of needs 
and priorities as well as for implementation.  An  enhanced, sustained and dedicated assistance 
package should be developed for LDCs.  Nepal was expecting practical support from relevant 
international organizations in the respective areas.   Nepal hoped that his delegation's concerns be 
reflected in the report in an appropriate manner so as  to enable LDCs to go along with the rest of the 
global community, which ultimately should contribute  to having a meaningful development Round for 
all Members.  Certainly, text-based negotiations should not precede  TA&CB commitment and its 
operationalization.  Similarly, S&D should be an in tegral part of the negotiations, making it precise, 
effective and operational.  Considering the lowest  level of capacities of LDCs, and as mandated by 
Annex D, the LDCs' concerns should find a specific pa ragraph in the report as Zambia had requested.    
123. The representative of Cuba  supported the statements by the Philippines on behalf of the Core 
Group, and Argentina as the coordinato r of the Latin American Group.   
124. On document TN/TF/W/41, Cuba supported the proposals by Brazil and Argentina on 
suggested amendments to reflect in paragraph 7 th e linkages between elements  of Annex D and other 
elements of the negotiations.  As for paragraph 2, Cuba echoed the concerns expressed by other 
delegations.  Some proposals were mentioned and some  were not.  It would be better not to mention 
any submission specifically.  Cuba wished the text to  be drafted in the same balanced approach the 
Chair and the Secretariat had been pursuing so far.     
125. Cuba also supported what Kenya had said about an explicit reference to a date early in 2006 
being rather premature, taking into account the stat e Members had reached in the negotiations.  Cuba 
was committed to concluding the Round as quickly as possible in that area.  But Cuba was well aware 
that on other issues there had not been a lot of pr ogress made.  Members had to keep a balance in all 
areas of the negotiations.  Therefore, the reference to a date early in 2006 could be a problem.    
126. Similarly, as other delegations had me ntioned, Cuba would like to refer to  S&D treatment.  
Cuba supported the proposals of Argentina and Brazil in that regard and welcomed the statement by 
Zambia as coordinator of the LDCs.   
127. The representative of Indonesia  expressed appreciation for doc ument TN/TF/W/72 and for the 
positive and transparent process in its preparation.  Indonesia fully supported the statement made by 
the Philippines on behalf of the Core Group on the draft report.    
128. Regarding paragraph 6, in addition to the sugges tion made by the Philippines on behalf of the 
Core Group, Indonesia wished to underscore the im portance of having the need for concrete TA&CB 
and S&D reflected in the draft report.  The opera tionalization of TA&CB was very important for the 
effective outcome of the negotiations.  In that re gard, it was essential to emphasize that there be a 
strong link between the trade facilitation measures in force and the capacity of Members.    TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 17 
 
 
129. The representative of th e European Communities  said that the draft report reflected the views 
of the NG on the work done so far and that to be done next year.  With that report, Members were 
reaching a significant moment in the work of the NG.   It was therefore important that the report was 
an accurate reflection of what had taken place in th e negotiations and where Members wanted them to 
move next year.   
130. Several Members had suggested changes and fine tuning of the draft, while a large number of 
other Members had called for letting sleeping dogs li e and for not making the best the enemy of the 
good, as the report reflected everybody's common level of shared satisfaction.  In respect to those 
Members who had proposed purely factual adjustments, the EC had no difficulty in contemplating those adjustments.     
131. But a number of Members had also suggested to  import specific bits of Annex D into the 
report or to reflect them differently.  The EC had no problem with that in principle but questioned the 
purpose of selecting certain parts of the mandate and transferring them into the report.  Nobody was 
trying to touch or alter the mandate which was th e basis of the negotiations.  It seemed risky to 
selectively pick and choose some parts of Annex D and put them in the report.  If there was a need to 
do that, the EC was willing to look at it on its merits , but would caution against an excessive desire to 
take parts of the mandate and bring them into the re port.  The draft already contained many references 
to the fact that the mandate remained the anc hor for the report and for work next year.   
132. A number of other Members had suggested chang es which were changes in substance, even if 
they were characterized as "minor stylistic adjust ments".  The EC saw that as a fairly unexpected 
attempt by some to pull the proverbial duvet a bit closer  to their side of the bed.  While that was in a 
sense to be expected when producing that sort of re port, some of the proposals for substantive changes 
could not be accepted by the European Communitie s as they did not reflect the common points of 
view that had been expressed in th e NG for nearly a year and a half.  Like others, the EC had wished 
to see much more ambition in that report in terms of the road map for 2006 concerning dates, deadlines and targets.  The Chair had chosen not to  reflect those ambitions, because he felt that the 
traffic would not bear it within the Group.  The EC was willing to accept a text which was a second-
best option in many respects, but on condition that others did as well.  Since time was limited, he would not go into details about the specific area s the EC had difficulties with, but said they were 
probably fairly clear.    
133. The representative of Costa Rica
 said that there was little to add to what had been said by the 
European Communities.  Costa Rica concurred as re gards the factual comments.  If any modification 
had to be made, it had to be done in that way.  Paragraph 2, for instance, made reference to some 
documents but not to others.  Costa Rica concurred with others that the current draft contained the 
elements Members had considered in the negotiations and set out areas where Members needed specific guidance from Ministers.   It was not a perfect text.  Costa Rica had concerns that had not 
been reflected in a manner wished by Costa Rica.  Nevertheless, Costa Rica could live with the 
document as it was, as long as it was not re-opened significantly beyond a mere correction of factual 
aspects.   
134. With respect to substantive i ssues, Costa Rica would have significant problems as regards the 
comments made by other delegations to that end.  Certain comments related to part of paragraph 2 
where reference was made to building common ground.   In most cases, no Member had  rejected any 
proposal outright.  Members were probably not in agreement on all the contents, but that would be 
resolved in the next stage of the negotiations.  Th erefore, that phrase should remain.  Costa Rica also 
would have liked to see more explicit language in paragraph 4 regardi ng text-based negotiations 
immediately after Hong Kong, but was prepared to  live with the text's suggested language if it 
remained as currently drafted.  As for paragr aph 7, Costa Rica believed that the Chair had 
appropriately reflected what Members had to do.  In that context, Costa Rica wished to clarify that TN/TF/M/11 
Page 18  
 
Argentina had not spoken as coordinator of the La tin American Group.  Costa Rica did not consider 
itself represented by Argentina's statement.     
135. Argentina and Brazil had suggested certain modifications such as referring to other 
paragraphs of the modalities, menti oning paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of A nnex D.  If such references were 
to be made, paragraph 1 should be included as we ll because when speaking of S&D one had to speak 
of the substance which could not be separated from the rest.     
136. The representative of New Zealand
 recognized that the Chair's task had been a difficult one. 
New Zealand had some strong reservations about aspects of the Chair's report.  In light of the limited 
time available, she would only mention three specific points.   
137. First, in relation to paragraph 6 on TA&CB, some  of the language in the final sentence of that 
paragraph went further than Members had gone in the room.  Being a small donor country, that made 
New Zealand quite uncomfortable.  New Zealand woul d have preferred not to have such language.   
138. Second, like others had mentioned, New Zealand had concerns about some of the references 
to specific proposals in paragraph 2.  All proposal s had equal status.  Some had suggested adding 
further items to that list.  New Zealand would prefer to see no proposals singled out.   
139. Third, New Zealand would have preferred to see greater specificity in paragraph 4 on the 
work programme for next year, both in terms of greater direction from Ministers to move swiftly 
towards negotiations, and perhaps a clear link between  the elements cited in the list and the future 
negotiations.  New Zealand also echoed the point made by the EC that it was risky to pick and choose parts of the mandate.  It would be better to reaffirm the whole mandate on the basis of the 
negotiations.   
140. Despite those concerns, and she had just me ntioned three on them, New Zealand recognized 
that all Members who had spoken ha d concerns of one sort or another and that what the Chair had 
attempted to produce was the best balance of the various concerns.  What was offered was a compromise.   
141. Therefore, overall, and on that basis, New Zeal and could accept the text as it was, but only on 
condition of there not being substantive changes.  It had not been an easy decision and New Zealand's 
acquiescence was dangling by a thread.  New Zealand left  the Chair with the task of ensuring that the 
thread was not broken.   
142. The representative of Sri Lanka
 appreciated the fact that the draft report had been made 
available early enough to allow his capital to react.  Sri Lanka considered the text to be a balanced one 
which represented a good reflection of the work  the NG had undertaken since the launch of the 
negotiations.  Sri Lanka also had some reservations on certain elemen ts and certain paragraphs, but, 
basically, could live with it, or even with some  modifications suggested by some developing 
countries.   He only had a few minor comments to make.    
143. First, with respect to text-based negotiations , Sri Lanka agreed on the importance of making 
some reference to the overall time line for completing the negotiations, including appropriate 
language to take into account such c oncern.  Perhaps it would be useful to guide or organize the future 
work.  Second, as some other developing countries had already stated, including the Philippines, Sri 
Lanka supported targeted technical assistance and a commitment to facilitate the participation of 
capital-based customs officials.  With such partic ipation, Members might be able to commence text-
based negotiation, not too early, but at the same ti me not too late, keeping in mind the end date for 
completing the task.    TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 19 
 
 
144. Like Pakistan, Sri Lanka supported linking th e commitment and obligation with TA&CB in a 
more explicit manner.  Finally, as mentioned in pa ragraph 5 of the report, Sri Lanka recognized the 
role of international organizati ons and supported that inclusion as Sri Lanka had immensely benefited 
by various activities of those international organi zations, such as the Expert Meeting organized by 
UNCTAD in September or the conference the OECD  organized in Colombo. Those efforts had 
contributed immensely to understanding the issues of  the negotiations. Perhaps that language could be 
further strengthened on that point.   
145. The representative of Turkey  said that even though Turkey would have preferred to see more 
ambition and clearer language in a draft, giving di rection for future work, the report was a balanced 
one, considering Members' different views on substance and on process.  Turkey was of the view that 
having a list of proposed elements in the draft te xt, in addition to making reference to TN/TF/W/43 as 
a reference for  future work, was the right approach .  However, fine tuning was needed in the heading 
of the first topic to reflect the fact that the lis t did not prejudge the outcome of the Trade Facilitation 
negotiations.  Other than that, Turkey could go along with the report as it was.   
146. The representative of Zimbabwe  fully supported the statement made by the Philippines on 
behalf of the Core Group, by the African Gr oup and by Zambia representing the LDCs.  The 
importance of Trade Facilitation could not be ove r-emphasized, especially for developing countries 
such as Zimbabwe which had little or no resources to  implement Articles V, VIII and X.  Zimbabwe 
reiterated its support for provisions mandated by An nex D of the July package and paragraph 27 of 
the Doha Development Agenda.  Zimbabwe reserved the right not to start text-based negotiations until 
such time when concrete TA&CB programmes with Zimbabwe's development partners had been put 
on the table.  Zimbabwe would also like to see effec tive S&D spelled out in the draft ministerial text.  
Trade Facilitation should also bring development to developing and least-developed countries.   
147. The representative of Uruguay  generally concurred with what had been said by other 
delegations about the text largely re flecting the debate that had so far taken place.  It was a consensus 
text and a balanced one.  Nevertheless, Urugua y concurred with the comments made by Brazil 
regarding paragraphs 2, 4, and 7 as a means of improving that first draft.   
148. The representative of China  said that the draft was a good reflection of the discussions held at 
previous meetings.  It did not only give Members a good picture of what they had been discussing in the NG but also provided them with guidelines fo r work after Hong Kong.  China welcomed the 
recommendations made in the draft report in respec t of identification of needs and priorities of 
Members, the provision of TA&CB and the proper se ttlement of S&D treatment.  Basically, the report 
was a good one, covering all the elements of the mandate.   
149. Some Members had referred to the importance of  keeping the balance of the report.  Others 
had also expressed concerns about paragraph 2 re ferring to some submissions without mentioning 
others.  Taking into consideration that there were  now about 60 submissions, it would be difficult to 
refer to them one by one or to ma ke a selection.  Perhaps one could st rike the balance by taking up the 
suggestions by Pakistan, Nicaragua , Switzerland and others for that paragraph only to give a factual 
and neutral description of the issues discussed in the NG without referring to specific submissions.   
150. The representative of India
 concurred with the view that the report reflected the process 
followed as a build-up to the report.  India appreci ated the transparent and inclusive process adopted 
in presenting the draft report which had well captu red the positive spirit of the NG. India also 
appreciated the reference to the compilation of questions and answers as well as reference to the 
written submissions on trade facilitation and customs compliance issues. 
151. India supported the statement by the Philippines on behalf of the Core Group regarding 
suggested changes.  Most of these statements would be  in the nature of fine tuning rather than major 
surgery.  In particular, India would like to point out  that in paragraph 2, the attempt of the report was TN/TF/M/11 
Page 20  
 
to give a factual presentation of the work done so far. In India's understanding, the factual assessment 
for the first aim of the negotiation had been that Members were presently attempting to have greater 
clarity on the proposal.  The phase to build  common ground would be a subsequent phase.  That was why it was in keeping with the factual nature of the reporting being done. India suggested to modify 
that language regarding building common gr ound, because that might be premature. 
152. India expressed some concern regarding the s uggestion to delete reference to certain 
documents in paragraph 2.  India felt that that was part of the overall balance of the text. While there 
was an annex listing many proposals and their main elements, the listing was not so elaborate on other areas of the negotiations.  India had refrained from seeking any further addition to that listing which it 
could have done, because of the nature of the proposals India had made which had only been 
indicated by one bullet point.  But India was w illing not to request further expanding the language 
under that heading on customs compliance issue, pr ovided that the mention to the documents in 
paragraph 2 was retained, because India fe lt that provided adequate comfort. 
153. The representative of the Dominican Republic
 said that the document had all the necessary 
elements that had to be put on the table, although  it was perhaps not as balanced as his delegation 
would like it to be.    
154. The Dominican Republic agreed with what the Philippines had said on behalf of the Core 
Group as well as by Zambia on behalf of the LDCs, a nd also agreed with Kenya.  In particular, the 
Dominican Republic wished to endorse Argentina a nd Brazil's point.  A number of opinions had been 
voiced about the various paragraphs of the documen t.  For example, on paragraph 2, the Dominican 
Republic considered it important to include all th e submissions made and all the opinions expressed 
throughout the course of the meetings.  On paragr aph 4, the Dominican Republic had two particular 
points to make. Even though Members had not adopted all the issues up for discussion and it might be early days to focus on specific wording, the Domi nican Republic could agree to the reference to the 
articles in that paragraph.  It was necessary to point out that the list in  paragraph 4 was only an 
indicative one.   
155. As for paragraph 7, the Dominican Republic s upported the statements made by Argentina and 
Brazil.  Their concerns were also a main concer n of the Dominican Republic with regard to the 
document.  If there were no clear recommendations w ith regard to TA&CB, the report would not be 
clearly reflecting all of Annex D's elements.  The report was intended to reflect the NG's work.  But Members had focussed a lot on the creation of rul es without sufficiently concentrating on aspects 
dealing with TA&CB.  For that reason, it was important to take into account the comments by 
Argentina with regard to paragraph 7.  Argentin a had rightly expressed the substance of document 
TN/TF/W/41.      
156. The Chair
 said that due to the late hour  he w ould suspend the meeting.  The remaining 
speakers on his list would be given the opportunity to make their contributions the next day.  Before 
suspending the meeting, he asked Members to careful ly reflect on the way forward, given that some 
Members had proposed substantive changes, some had suggested minor stylistic adjustments with 
others also proposing suggesti ons to make the document perfect, without however necessarily 
insisting on them unless others insisted on the changes.  He therefore urged everybody to reflect on that and to consider how one should proceed.  He reminded Members that the text had to be submitted 
very soon.   
157. Members should take the time to reflect among themselves as to how best to proceed, taking 
into account what had been said.  He wanted clear  advice from everybody as to how to move forward.  
All  Members' statements and concerns would be reflected in the minutes of the meeting.  Members might wish to take that into account when thinking about whether to insist on certain amendments.    
158. The Negotiating Group took note
 of the statements made.        TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 21 
 
 
159. The meeting was suspended . 
160. The meeting  resumed  on 10 November.   
161. The Chair  expressed his hope that Members had used the time to reflect on how to move 
forward.   
162. The representative of El Salvador  said that the document circ ulated the previous week 
reflected well the progress made by the NG so far.  El Salvador considered it important to include in 
paragraph 2 of the draft report a reference to  contribution TN/TF/W/41 by a number of Latin 
American countries, which contained a number of points on the interrelati onship between Annex D's 
elements.    
163. In addition, El Salvador considered it necessary that the language contained in paragraph 4 of 
the draft report on the list of elements contained in the last part of the document should clearly reflect 
its indicative nature to make clear that each and ev ery element contained in that list remained subject 
to negotiations and that there was the possib ility of elements not being included.    
164. Finally, El Salvador considered it necessary th at the language contained in the first sentence 
of paragraph 7 about the work having to be d eepened and intensified on S&DT should keep the 
already agreed language contained in Annex D. 
165. The representative of Colombia  said that the submitted draft reflected to a great extent the 
NG's work.  It was an objective report.  To make th e text even more balanced, Colombia considered it 
important to mention document TN/TF/W/41, which Colombia had sponsored together with a large 
group of Latin American countries.  The aim was to complement the information contained in 
paragraph 2 when mentioning the contributions from the African Group (documents TN/TF/W/33 and 
TN/TF/W/56 regarding TA&CB and the practical app lication of the principle of S&DT).  The report 
said that various contributions had been made on th at area but it merely highlighted the position of the 
African Group.  There had been other documents on th e issue, several of them containing information 
on TA programmes provided.  But only those of th e African Group and of Latin American countries 
dealt with the interrelationship that should exist between the 3 pillars of Annex D. 
166. In order to maintain a proper balance, doc ument TN/TF/W/41 should be mentioned.  
Colombia also agreed with intensifying work over th e next year to achieve a text that took account of 
all the elements of the mandate.   To achieve that,  paragraphs 5 and 7 highlighted the areas where it 
was imperative to work hard.  In particular, Colomb ia welcomed what paragraph 6 said.   That was in 
line with the positions of the Latin American countries set out in TN/TF/W/41.  Finally,  the list of themes should be an illustrative one, as mentioned in paragraph 4. 
167. The representative of Egypt
 wished to record a few factual observations.  While Egypt 
understood and shared some of the concerns e xpressed by Members of both the African Group and 
the Core Group, Egypt remained convinced that Me mbers had a good draft which needed fine tuning 
rather than redrafting or re-negotiation altogeth er.  It was clear that the report reflected the 
constructive spirit and nature of the work done by th e NG so far.  Egypt was keen to preserve that 
spirit, particularly when trying to identify the thrust of the message sent to Hong Kong. 
168. Egypt preferred to avoid any selectivity in referri ng to submissions in the report.  One way of 
doing that was to eliminate those references as Chin a had already mentioned.  That might be a good 
way of dealing with the issue, allowing the report to remain factual.  The references would perhaps 
also serve as a confusing element to Ministers rather than anything else.  They were clear to  Members 
in the room but might not be clear to Ministers in Hong Kong. TN/TF/M/11 
Page 22  
 
169. One way of continuing to be constructive wh ile being factual was, as Brazil and Argentina 
had mentioned, to stress in a more explicit way the linkages contained in the mandate, saying that new 
commitments must be substantiated by equal a nd balanced commitments on TA&CB and S&D for the 
different Members.    
170. As for the three roman numbers, Egypt saw no real utility in keeping them.  It might also be a 
little confusing for Ministers to see just a listing of the different headings that had been discussed by 
the Group.    
171. Finally, Egypt wished to express its discomfort  with the tone some Members had introduced 
in the NG, which had so far been working in harm ony.  Negotiations were going on.  It was not going 
to be a-take-it-or-leave-it exercise for anybody.  Members should maintain the spirit in which they 
had started their work and continue to work cons tructively around the different proposals. That was 
the spirit of the African Group and also of the Core Group.  
172. The representative of Ecuador
 expressed appreciation for the report which contained 
Annex D's elements and generally was a balanced  document to which adjustments could be made. 
173. On paragraph 2, a reference had to be include d to all submitted documents in order for the 
report to maintain that balance.  Alternatively,  one could also not mention any document.  On 
paragraph 4 of the report regardi ng the reference to the list of elements, Ecuador agreed with 
Colombia and El Salvador that the list should be me rely referential, especially as it was connected to 
the Secretariat's document TN/TF/W/43/Rev.4.  In  paragraph 7, it might be wise to include a 
reference to the link existing between all elemen ts of Annex D in the context of the proposal 
submitted by some Latin American countries.   
174. The representative of Mexico  echoed the proposals made by Members on how to improve 
paragraphs 2, 4 and 7 of the draft report.  It would be relatively easy to take them on board.   That 
would help raise the level of suppor t of a group of delegations that had been very constructive in the 
TF and other negotiations.  As for paragraph 2, it  would be sensible to include a reference to 
document TN/TF/W/41.  It would not require any wo rk and would meet the expectations of a large 
number of countries.  Mexico therefore proposed to have paragraph 2 say that other valuable 
documents had been presented, adding TN /TF/W/41 to the other documents.   
175. With regard to paragraph 4, the addition of an  adjective before "list of elements" such as 
"illustrative" or "indicative" would resolve the concerns of many delegations. 
176. On paragraph 7, the Secretariat could help find some wording about the link between the 
elements in Annex D.  Everybody agreed on that – and it would be quite easy to reflect all those 
elements. 
177. The representative of Norway  observed that some of the views expressed by Members on the 
content of the report for Hong Kong went in the same  direction while others had a different view of 
what a report for Ministers in Hong Kong should contain.  Norway had put forward several views and saw most of the items reflected in the present draft.   At the same time, it was clear that the way in 
which some of Norway's ideas had been reflected was not necessarily in line with what it would have 
liked to see.  
178. Norway therefore belonged to the camp of "unh appy" delegations, and seemed to be in good 
company.  Several other delegations had already poin ted to parts of the report they would have liked 
to see changed.  With respect to paragraph 2, for in stance, Norway saw no need to have a reference to 
some selected papers.  In paragraph 4, the last  sentence should have a clear target date, and the 
language in paragraphs 6 and 7 shoul d have been modified.  There was no need to enter into specific 
details in that regard unless the Chair wanted it.   TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 23 
 
 
179. Norway had listened that morning to the summing up at the HODs meeting by the Director-
General in which he had mentioned several points of agreement among all Members.  The first had 
been that Hong Kong should capture progress made si nce July 2004.  Second, he had pointed to the 
fact that Members needed a text for Ministers in H ong Kong and that such a text should be developed 
in a bottom-up approach.  The final point he had mentioned was that the text of July 2004 should not 
be renegotiated.  He also called for a balance ac ross the board and for the views from all Negotiating 
Groups. 
180. Building on the points made by  the Director-General, nobody would disagree with the fact 
that good progress had been made in the NGTF on a ll parts of the mandate, even though some might 
have had a slower start-up than others.  That shoul d be, and had been, captured in the draft report to 
Ministers. 
181. The bottom-up approach in developing such a re port had also been achieved.  Furthermore, 
the draft report should  be balanced compared to what the progress was in other NGs.  The draft report 
came very close to reaching that objective as well. No rway wished to point out the fact that the July 
Package was not being renegotiated.  The July 2004 text had already set out the agreed modalities for 
the TF negotiations.  Members were therefore not deciding on renegotiating modalities in Hong Kong.  
What Members should do was to simply reaffirm the mandate by putting forward a balanced report 
for Hong Kong that captured the progress made since July 2004 and that made recommendations for 
future work in line with the given modalities.  Th ese recommendations, as well as the report of the 
progress made, should cover all aspects of the mandate , such as substance, TA&CB, needs assessment 
and S&DT. 
182. The representative of the United States  added her voice to the delegations expressing 
appreciation for the process set up by the Chair in the TF negotiations over the last year which had led 
to a very engaged process.  Voices had been heard that were not normally heard in the WTO.   There 
had been so many submissions and mu ch engagement at all levels that the US felt fairly confident that 
no matter what happened with the report, Members would continue working with a commitment to 
carry out all parts of the mandate.   
183. At the same time, the United States was con cerned that some suggestions, which had been 
considered to be "stylistic" by those making them, might  in fact be substantive to others and that that 
would cause further attempts to negotiate the text.  There was danger in going into that.  The United 
States was of the view that it was not that impor tant in the negotiations to have a report that 
everybody was happy with in terms of every sentence.    
184. The report contained some phrases that had raised  some questions in Washington.  But that 
was all right.  The US could accept the text as it was and hoped that others woul d be able to go along 
as well with the same attitude.   The text captured where the discussions were.  The US was not sure 
whether much more could really get the Group an ywhere. The NGTF was not a body requiring fine 
tuning.    
185. The US looked forward to discussing the issues with other delegations, but hoped that work 
on the matter could finish soon, and also looked fo rward to getting back to work again after the 
Ministerial Conference in the way carried out over the course of the past year.   
186. The representative of Djibouti  said that the NGTF had done a remarkable job and had 
considered the concerns of all Members, especially  in the area of technical assistance, which was of 
particular interest to Djibouti as an LDC.  It  stood out positively compared to other Negotiating 
Groups.  Having a draft report on which everybody agreed was a tremendous result.  It was largely 
thanks to the Chair's determination that Member s had achieved something positive.  And it had done 
so on issues of national interest such as S&DT a nd capacity building which were issues of particular 
concern to LDCs.   TN/TF/M/11 
Page 24  
 
187. One thing to avoid were selective preferences.   Once Ministers were involved, views were 
sometimes a little different.  Ministers were not going to say preference for that or that group but rather they would consider preferences on a case- by-case basis.  That was why one should avoid 
specific preferences but rather express a general view  as it had always been traditional in the WTO.  
Once those documents were before Ministers, they would have to adopt them  and they preferred to 
adopt general principles rather than a particular pr eference for a particular group.  One had to avoid 
selectivity on the matter of preferences if one wanted  to ensure the adoption of the excellent report. 
188. The representative of Honduras
 said that the draft report well reflected the progress made in 
the Negotiating Group.  It was important to rea ffirm the mandate in Annex D.  Honduras also 
supported the addition of the word "indicative" to the reference to  the list of possible measures agreed 
upon in the negotiations, and shared the view that  in paragraph 2 refere nce should be made to 
TN/TF/W/41.  
189. The representative of Singapore  underlined the importance of what Members were discussing 
in the NGTF in terms of the broader process launched.  At the informal HODs meeting earlier that day, there had been a clear sense that one should intensify work and do what one could in the 
remaining time possible.  It was essential to agree on as much as possible so that one could build on 
the July framework.  Without reiterating the detailed comments already, Singapore wished to underline two points.   
190. First, the report was based on the discussions , the negotiations and the work Members had 
done within the NG.  It was not something the Ch air had imposed on Members.  Rather, even though 
it might contain some imperfections, it was a collective product. 
191. The second and most important point for Singapore was that the report was drafted in a way 
that did not prejudge the negotiating position or inte rest of any delegation.  It gave room and 
flexibility for all Members to continue work post-Ho ng Kong.  There should be  some latitude in terms 
of taking into account the various comments that had been made in the course of the present meeting, 
but one should not let the best become the enemy of the good.   
192. What Members had in front of them was a constructive and productive piece of work.  It was 
important that the Negotiating Group set the example fo r the rest of the proces s since it was the first 
Negotiating Group meeting where there had clearly b een a sense that Members should intensify work 
and do what they could to breach differences.  Singa pore wished to appeal once more for the spirit of 
working together that Egypt had evoked earlier.  On that basis, Singapore hoped that Members could 
agree to the report with as minimal changes as possible. 
193. The Chair
 wished to set out how he would like to proceed in order to bring the meeting to a 
satisfactory conclusion for everyone concerned.  As mentioned right at the start of the meeting, the 
main aim was to  finalize the NG's report to the TNC.  While that was certainly an important step in 
the NG's work, it had to be recalled that what Me mbers were trying to do was agree on a report that 
encapsulated the NG's view on the progress made and the road ahead. The report would then have to 
go to the TNC, and from there to the General Council, leaving Members with the opportunity to 
decide precisely how they would like to see the text reflected in the respective products of those bodies.  He was, of course, aware of the broader overall context in which the Group operated and of 
its implications on the NG's work. At the same time,  he considered it important to put things into 
perspective, and not to confuse the present task in  the NG with what was yet to come in the TNC and 
General Council process. 
194. The task to date was to produce a collective appreciation of the progress Members had made 
so far in the negotiations, and to set out some guidance on how Members, collectively, wished the 
negotiations to proceed after Hong Kong.  To do th at, it was necessary to identify the common ground  TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 25 
 
 
where each Member, individually, felt comfortabl e positioning itself, and where Members felt that 
their negotiating position was properly protected. 
195. He had listened very carefully to all comments made.  They would be faithfully reproduced in 
the minutes of the meeting.  That would ensure th at the precise way in which Members wished to 
situate themselves in relation to the common ground Members were trying to capture in the Group's 
report to the TNC was fully and accurately captu red for the record, and that each delegation's 
negotiating position was not prejudiced once negotiations started up again in the NG after Hong Kong. 
196. With respect to the draft report by the NG to the TNC on which Members had been 
commenting (TN/TF/W/72), there had been a number of requests for corrections which could be 
termed factual.  He had made those changes, and w ould ask the Secretariat to distribute a revised text 
that contained them. With regard to comments on the quality of the text in capturing the common 
ground of the progress the NG had made in the ne gotiations, he wished to say the following. 
197. Understandably, Members' comments pulled in  several different directions.  Some, for 
example, wanted a date for starting text-based nego tiations, while others did not want any mention of 
that point.  He had not heard anything at the pr esent meeting which differed significantly from what 
he had heard from Members in the consultations he  had conducted two weeks ago prior to preparing 
the draft text.  He had tried his best to identify the middle ground then, and was not sure he was able to do a better job now.  It had to  be acknowledged that there were different shades of grey over 
important issues such as starting text-based negotia tions.  The key question for Members was whether 
Members could live with the middle ground in th e draft, taking into account that the comments 
Members had made to paint in their particular shad e of grey around the text would be fully reflected 
in the minutes and could therefore be referred to auth oritatively again at future meetings of the NG.  
198. Secondly, again on the common ground, he was pleased to note that there had been no 
fundamental disagreement among Members on the sev en recommendations contained in the text.  
That was the operational part of the text, and the pa rt that therefore counted the most since it provided 
guidance to the Group on the way in wh ich further negotiations should proceed. 
199. Turning to the question of the text for Ministers in Hong Kong, which many Members had 
encouraged him to draft and which, as Members knew,  he had been asked by the Director-General to 
produce by the end of that week, he said that he had prepared a draft text which he would ask the 
Secretariat to circulate.  It made three poin ts, which he hoped would attract Members' support. 
200. The first was that the mandate contained in Annex D remained unchanged, and was to apply 
fully to all aspects of the further negotiations. 
201. Second, Ministers were not asked to adopt  the report.  Ministers were invited to note the  
Group's report along with the comments delegations had made at the meeting on the report – those 
were the shades of grey which he had mentioned earlier, which would protect the negotiating position 
of each delegation when the negotiati ons started up again after Hong Kong. 
202. Third, Ministers were invited to endorse the Group's recommendations contained in the 
report.  They had not attracted real adverse comment s from anyone in the Group, so he did not believe 
that this should represent a controve rsial step for Ministers to take. 
203. Finally, on procedure, he did not believe that time spent further trying to produce the 
"perfect" text of the Group's report, which some Me mbers had indicated they were looking for, would 
be time well spent, either by Members as busy delegates, or by him as Chairman who, as he readily 
admitted, also had to dedicate himself to defending  his country's position in other areas of the Doha 
negotiations.   TN/TF/M/11 
Page 26  
 
204. What he was presenting to Members now was therefore an "imperfect" text.  Nevertheless, he 
would like to ask Members to agree to adopt the dr aft as the Group's report to the TNC, taking into 
account the safeguards he had set out: (i) that indivi dual negotiating positions were fully protected by 
the record of Members' comments made at the meeting  (ii) that Ministers would not be asked to adopt the report, but rather to note its contents, along with Members' comments, (iii) and that the 
recommendations the NG asked Ministers to endorse had not attracted any real adverse comment.  
205. Copies of the revised draft report and the draft Ministerial language were distributed in the 
room, and copies of his speaking note were also made available to Members..  He suggested to take a break while Members considered the draft texts,  and to consult with each other on how the Group 
should proceed.  He would be available to anyone who would like to speak to him.  The meeting 
would then be resumed.   
206. The meeting was suspended
. 
207. Upon resuming the meeting, the Chair  invited Members to share the results of their reflection 
and consultations on the proposed texts.  
208. The representative of Djibouti  appreciated the opportunity to comment on the paper and to 
see whether Members could accept it.  In light of the current stage of discussions, it was interesting to 
see what Members could come up with as the view of the Group.  Some Members might not yet be ready and might need more time in order to consult among themselves.   
209. The Chair
 asked whether the wish for more time w as a general wish of the NG.  If that was 
the case, he would try to seek ways to arrange for that.  
210. The representative of Zambia , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , commended the Chair 
for taking into consideration delegations' input towa rds refining the report.  At the same time, the 
LDCs had not anticipated to be requested to consid er the report in the suggested manner.  The time 
accorded to considering the revised report was very little to consult with other countries that made up 
the LDC Group.  While only three amendments had been made, the LDCs wished to consult further 
with the  rest of the LDC Group before adopting the report.  Some concerns put forward by the LDCs 
had not been taken on board. For example, the title of the list of elements should read "proposed 
measures".  That had not yet been taken into acc ount, even though it was a fact and should have been 
amended as such.   
211. The Chair said that if Members wanted more time , he was prepared to positively respond to 
that.  But with respect to the remark about not havi ng expected to be asked to finalize the report, it 
had to be recalled that the airgram listed the finalizat ion of the NG's report as its first agenda item.  In 
addition, a fax had been sent out to delegations re ferring to the finalization and eventual adoption of 
the report.  The intention and purpose of the meetin g had therefore been made quite clear.   But he 
was, of course, in the hands of Me mbers and, if they so wished, the meeting could be extended to give 
delegations more time.  
212. The representative of Kenya  said that it was necessary to inj ect some seriousness in the work 
of the NG.  One seemed to take a lot of things fo r granted and that might not act very well for some 
Members.  The Chair had to know that there were constituencies to report to.  When consulting on the 
report with capital and when being given the o pportunity to discuss the report many Members had 
highlighted what their constituencies would like to se e.  Kenya had thought that, when circulating the 
revised draft, more time would be given to Members to consult with their capitals before arriving at 
the final conclusion of the report.  Kenya was surp rised that Members were now called to adopt the 
report when it had not consulted with its capital on the revised draft.  That was not appropriate.  
Kenya wanted more time to consult with  its capital before adopting the report.   TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 27 
 
 
213. The Chair  said that the meeting and the precedi ng consultations had been conducted in an 
open and inclusive manner as delegati ons had repeatedly recognized.  The allegation of there being a 
need to inject seriousness into the work  of the NG was therefore a serious one.  He had  done his work 
in all seriousness when introducing those amendments , which had taken a lot of time away from what 
was his main job as his country's representative. If Me mbers wanted more time, they should make this 
known and he would respond to that positively.  But accusing the Chair of being less than serious was 
something he took seriously.  
214. The representative of Djibouti  said that the NG had made progress in most of the issues 
before it. As had been noted by Zambia on behalf of the LDCs and by Kenya, one had to be quite 
clear that in view of the consultations curre ntly ongoing between various groups, it would be 
extremely difficult to already give a final answer on the report.    
215. Djibouti would try to organize a meeting either ne xt week, or when time permitted, in order to 
consider the proposal.  To give an answer immedi ately would be impossible since everybody had to 
agree and that required the approval of ambassadors.  More time was needed.  
216. The Negotiating Group took note  of the statements made.       
217. The meeting was suspended . 
218. The meeting resumed  on 11 November.   
219. The Chair  said that he had provided de legations with more time as  he had sensed that to be 
the Members' wish.  He hoped that Members were  in a position to share with the Group whatever 
additional information they had gained from their co nsultations and that the Group would be able to 
see where to go.  He hoped Members would share their views and positions so that everybody was 
aware of where one stood and nob ody was under any illusions.  As set out in the airgram, the 
objective of the meeting was the finalization of th e Group's report to the TNC in the context of the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.   
220. The representative of the Philippines , speaking on behalf of the Core Group,  expressed 
appreciation for the transparent manner in which wo rk on the texts had taken place and for the spirit 
of  constructive engagement.  Members were there to finalize the report of the Negotiating Group on 
Trade Facilitation, a Group that had achieved much progress over the last one-and-half years, and it had done so in a spirit of positive engagement.  In that spirit of positive progress and constructive 
engagement, after much discussion in the Core Gr oup, the Group had limited its comments to five 
suggested refinements of the Chair's draft text.    
221. In Paragraph 2, 7
th line, following up on the Core Group's earlier comments on its concern 
regarding the phrase, "building common ground", the Core Group proposed to speak of "were 
working towards  common ground....", so that the sentence w ould read: "Members had advanced their 
understanding of the measures in question a nd were working towards common ground on many 
aspects of that part of the negotiating mandate". 
222. In Paragraph 3, 2nd line, the Core Group proposed a footnote after, "experience papers" and 
requested the Secretariat to make reference to a ll submitted experience papers, similar to what had 
been done with respect to footnotes 1 to 4. 
223. In Paragraph 4, 4th line, after TN/TF/W/43/Rev.4, th e sentence should continue with, " and 
any additional proposals to be presented".  The sente nce should then read, "….. as reflected currently 
in document TN/TF/W/43/Rev.4 and any additional proposals to be presented". TN/TF/M/11 
Page 28  
 
224. Still on Paragraph 4, 5
th line, one should add after "list of" the words, "proposed measures" 
and delete "elements".  The sentence would then  read: "Without prejudice to individual Member's 
positions on individual proposals, a list of proposed measures  drawn from it was provided below."  
The fifth and final minor refinement was to insert th e word "proposed" before the word "measures" in 
introducing the long list of possible improvements and measures.   
225. Those were refinements the Core Group had arri ved at after much internal discussion. They 
had limited their comments in order to take into acc ount the Chair's and all other Member's desire to 
finalize the report as soon as possible.   
226. The representative of Argentina  attached great importance to the text of the report as well as 
to that of the proposed ministerial language.  There were certain paragraphs in  that report which were 
going to become recommendations.  Consequently, it  was necessary once again to be mindful of the 
suggestion and concern Argentina had mentioned earlie r regarding paragraph 7, designed to bring the 
text of what would be a future recommendation in line with the text already agreed upon in Annex D. 
227.  Two basic points had been proposed.  In the firs t part of paragraph 7, Argentina suggested to 
replace the phrase "allow for necessary flexibility in im plementing the results of the negotiations" by 
"taking into account the timing and extent of entering into commitments... etc" which was a principle 
of Annex D and which truly reflected the principle all Members had agreed upon. It was not really clear what the current reference to necessary flexib ility, which was new wording, actually meant.    
228. The second point Argentina had suggested affected the second part of paragraph 7, where it 
was proposed that reference be made globally to the ex isting links in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.  The 
text suggested was:  "among the elements of Annex D, especially those contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 
4, 5, and 6". Afterwards the text would continue  as it currently stood.  What Argentina wanted to 
reflect was the basic idea that those paragraphs must be read in the most comprehensive manner 
possible.  Argentina wished to have those ob servations reflected in any future ministerial 
recommendation which would be just as important as Annex D.   
229. The representative of Brazil
 appreciated the efforts made by the Chair in providing Members 
with a revised draft expeditiously and in provid ing delegations with time to exchange ideas among 
themselves and with the Chair.  The way of conducti ng work had always, especially over the past few, 
proven that the NG was moving in the right directi on.  Brazil very much agreed with the way the 
Chair had led Members.  The revised draft had incor porated some of the suggestions made earlier by 
some delegations.  Brazil, however, wished to echo what was said by Argentina on the importance of 
paragraph 7 which contained the main element of  the draft and was probably the most important 
element to be inserted in the Ministerial Declaration.   
230. The reasoning behind that proposed change of la nguage was the attempt to reflect the very 
delicate balance set out in Annex D concerning th e entering into new commitments, S&DT, TA and 
implementation.  Brazil was not trying to invent an y language, but merely sought to reflect faithfully 
what was in Annex D in order to maintain its balance. 
231. As for the first change proposed by Argentina,  taking up that proposal would give the 
necessary level of comfort required to continue with the negotiations on new commitments.  The 
relation between the extent and timing of entering into commitments to implementation capacities was 
one core idea of Annex D.  It maintained the level of comfort required to continue with the exercise.  
That was why there was so much insisting on it being pa rt of the text.  It was not, as some had pointed 
out, selective reading.  It would be selective reading if there was any kind of arbitrariness in picking 
up that sentence.  But there was no arbitrariness.  It was language of Annex D, which was part of a 
very delicate balance on which all Members agreed.    TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 29 
 
 
232. The second suggestion reflected the idea that the mandate should be read in a holistic way.  
One had to see the commitments Members were ne gotiating and link them to the question of S&D, 
implementation capacity and technical assistance.  No  element should be regarded in isolation since 
all of them were closely linked to each other.  Th at was the point that was being made and the reason 
for endorsing Argentina's suggestion which was important.  
233. The representative of Morocco , speaking on behalf of the African Group  said that, as far as 
the draft report to the TNC was concerned, the African Group, within the spirit of compromise, 
wished to offer some minor suggestions for the purpo se of fine tuning the report.   Accordingly, the 
African Group suggested the following:  In terms of  paragraph 2 of the text, the sentence starting 
"Members had advanced their understanding of the measures in question and were building common 
ground on many aspects of that part of the negotiating mandate" should be read as follows:  
"Members had advanced their understanding of the measures in question and were working towards 
common ground on many aspects of that part of the negotiating mandate". 
234. In paragraph 3 of the text, the African Group s uggested that there should be a footnote after 
the word "process" appearing in the second line, referri ng to input with regard to national experiences.  
In paragraph 4, the sentence starting with "allowing also for additional proposals to be presented and 
taken into account" could simply be modified to r ead:  "any additional proposals to be presented and 
taken into account".  One should add the word "pr oposed measures" to the fo llowing sentence so that 
it would read: "Without prejudice to individual Memb er's positions on individual proposals, a list of 
proposed measures of elements drawn from it is pr ovided below to facilitate  further negotiations". 
235.  The third suggested modification with regard to paragraph 4 was to replace the word "must" 
by "should", so that the sentence would read:   "Members should be mindful of the overall deadline 
for finishing the negotiations". 
236. A fourth, minor, suggestion within the same paragraph was to remove the word "enough", 
with the sentence then reading: "need to move into focussed draf ting mode early in 2006".  With 
regard to paragraph 6, the word "expeditiously" should be added after "reinforced".  The sentence 
would then read:  "the Negotiating Group recomme nds that the commitments in Annex D's mandate 
in that area be reaffirmed, reinforced  and expeditiously made operational". 
237. Within the same paragraph, one should delete the words "the significant amount" within the 
reference to "valuable technical assistance" so th at the sentence would read: "recognizing valuable 
assistance already being provided in the area".  One should also add the word "proposed" to measures 
to improve and clarify GATT Articles V, VIII and X.   
238. Finally, the African Group supported the proposal made and reaffirmed by Argentina. 
239. The representative of Cuba  expressed appreciation for the possibility to review the very 
important theme which could have major repercussi o n s  o n  M e m b e r s '  w o r k  i n  t h e  f u t u r e .   C u b a  
supported the statements made by the Philippines on behalf of the Core Group, by the African Group, 
and by Argentina. 
240. With respect to paragraph 7, in order to conti nue with the discussions that had already started, 
especially within the framework of  the recently-held TNC meeting, where the word recalibrate had 
been used, Cuba wished to make a proposal in a constructive fashion.   Cuba wanted to eliminate the 
reference to the year 2006.  Cuba understood th at the fundamental objective was to conclude the 
negotiations on the basis of a text and was in full ag reement with that.  But one had to bear in mind 
the fact that the result of the negotiations was clos ely linked to that of subjects as well, where full 
clarity had not yet been achieved.  Cuba wished th at concern to be included in a revised version. TN/TF/M/11 
Page 30  
 
241. The Chair
 sought clarification from Cuba to be tter understand its position.  The African 
Group had said that they wanted to delete the word "enough", in paragraph 4's penultimate line 
bottom, suggesting the sentence to read "early in 2006".  Cuba had said that it supported the African 
Group position, but now also mentioned its wish to  delete "2006" which would leave the sentence to 
read "early" without "2006".  A clarification from Cuba would be appreciated.  
242. The representative of Cuba  said that there might be a problem of misunderstanding. What 
Cuba wanted was to remove the explicit mention to  2006.  There was a general date for finishing the 
negotiations, but it was not yet known exactly whether it would be possible to finish by then.  There 
was no explicit mention of such a date in other ar eas of negotiation. That was why Cuba wanted to 
have the reference to the date removed.    
243. The representative of Egypt  fully endorsed the statements made by the African Group and the 
Core Group.  In the spirit of constructive delibera tions within that Group, Egypt had tried to remain 
strictly factual and would only suggest very minor changes by way of fine tuning the language of the 
report.  Egypt supported the suggestion by Argentina regarding paragraph 7, wh ich was completely in 
line with Annex D, paragraphs 2, 3,  4, 5 and 6.  Egypt underlined the need for a holistic approach.  
That was in the letter and in the spirit of Annex D.    
244. By way of information, Egypt also wanted to inform Members of a new submission that 
would soon be circulated by Egypt on its national e xperience, particularly with the clarification of 
Articles V, VIII and X.   
245. The representative of Zambia wished to revert to some of the changes proposed earlier which 
had not been taken on board.  In the spirit of movi ng the process forward, the LDCs had shortened its 
list of proposals, welcoming also the proposals by the African Group.   
246. In paragraph 2, 7th line, as the Core Group had proposed, the LDCs also wished to remove the 
word "building" to have the sentence speak of "working towards a common ground".  As for paragraph 4, second page, the LDCs would like to add the word "illustrative" before "list of 
elements".  On paragraph 6, 4
th line, starting with "reaffirmed, rein forced and made operational", the 
LDCs wished to insert the word "expeditiously" before "made".   
247. The other change that the LDCs wanted to pro pose related to the line in paragraph 6 staring 
with "recognizing".  The LDCs had proposed to delete the phrase "the significant amount of 
valuable", and wanted that to be considered.  The section should read: "recognizing assistance already 
provided".  As for the title below para graph 7, the LDCs wanted that to  speak of an "illustrative list of 
proposed measures to improve and clarify GATT Articles V, VIII  and X". 
248. The representative of Tanzania  associated his delegation with the statements by the 
Philippines on behalf of the Core Group, Morocco  on behalf of the African Group and Zambia on 
behalf of the LDCs.  The refinement proposed cap tured Tanzania's concerns  which should be taken 
into account if one was to have a factual balanced  report.  In the TNC meeting the previous day, 
Tanzania had emphasized the need to go to Hong Kong with clarity in order to make Ministers give 
Members balanced guidance.  For that, it was necessary to send them a balanced draft text.  Many 
Members shared that view.  Tanzania therefore e xpected that balance to be maintained in all 
important areas negotiated under th e Doha mandate.  Trade Facilitation was not isolated from that 
important overall crusade. 
249. The representative of th e European Communities  expressed appreciation for the Chair's 
efforts to reach a text that was balanced and whic h fairly reflected the views of the NG, both on the 
progress made and on the way ahead.    TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 31 
 
 
250. As already indicated, while having concer ns with the text and reservations,  the EC was ready 
to agree on the text proposed by the Chair in the sp irit of compromise.  The EC was  also willing to 
consider factual changes, but could not accept cha nges on substance which would distort the text and 
no longer fairly reflect the views of the Negotiating Group. 
251. Therefore, the European Communities could not accept the proposals, many of which 
constituted a major change in substance.  Th ere was selective quoting and even a rewriting of 
Annex D.   Therefore, with one or two exceptions , the suggested changes were not acceptable to the 
EC.  The EC would come back with further proposals from its side.  The text could be improved, such 
as by  proposing to start text -based negotiations in January. 
252. The representative of Canada  said that her delegation had reviewed the Chair's original text, 
which Canada had considered to be a very careful ly crafted balance of the views of the Negotiating 
Group and which Canada, with some reservations, ha d been prepared to adopt.  There were some 
factual changes made in the revised version which Canada had also reviewed and was prepared to 
accept.    
253. But the interventions heard to date tipped the bala nce of the report of the NG to the effect that 
Canada found itself unable to go along with those changes. 
254. The Chair  asked Members for direction as to what to do next. 
255. The representative of the Philippines , speaking on behalf of the Core Group  reiterated that the 
Core Group had only proposed five refinements.  If there were specific concerns, they could be discussed item by item.  In any event, Members had TN/TF/W/43.Rev.4 to work with and to bring to Hong Kong. Ministers could direct further discussi ons and negotiations based on that document and 
on Annex D. 
256. The representative of the United States
 expressed appreciation for having been given time to 
review the report again and to see the actual text for the declaration which the US was still studying.    
The reaction of the United States to the changes sugg ested by certain Members was that most of the 
changes proposed did not appear to be stylistic or f actual.  But before condemning every single one of 
them, it should be said that the US was sympathetic to some of them.  Listing national experience 
papers, for instance, as part of the NG's work was very helpful and would be a valuable contribution 
to the report.  The US also sympathized with  those Members who had suggested changing the 
reference to the list of measures.  The wording  could be more precise to reflect the fact that those 
were proposed measures.  The US did not agree with  the suggestion to insert the term "illustrative" 
because the measures came from Members, no one had ma de them up.  They were not illustrative but 
had actually been proposed.  But to the extent that any more precision was needed to describe that list, 
the US could sympathize with that because it was factual. 
257. On other aspects, the US was a little disappointed  to hear people suggesting that the NG was 
only working towards a common ground.  The US ha d thought that Members were at least beginning 
to build common ground, without claiming that consensus on anything already existed until 
everything ended.  Some of those suggestions did tip the balance quite radically.  The US was also 
disappointed about the suggestion to call the aid prov ided neither valuable nor significant after the US 
had distributed the full record of the assistance provided around the world. 
258. The US was not sure whether the spirit emer ging from the current meeting was a good one, 
and was also not sure what the best way might be to go forward.  Perhaps one could step back and 
find out what the problem really was. Some wished  to renegotiate Annex D.  The Director-General 
had made it clear that Members were not supposed  to do that.  But perhaps it was possible to see 
whether there was anything that really hurt, given the cooperative spir it experienced in the 
negotiations.   TN/TF/M/11 
Page 32  
 
259. There were many things in the report that were  not perfect.  Washington had a lot of questions 
about some of the expressions used.  Left to its ow n devices for half a day, the US could come up with 
a lot of additions to make it the perfect report fo r the United States.  But the US had respect for the 
consultations the Chair had been holding among Memb ers.  The US was open to factual corrections.  
But some of the suggestions really went in a direction that seemed to make it not representative of the 
good work of the NG and its constructive spirit.  
260. The representative of Nigeria
 said that with respect to what  to do next, Nigeria wished to 
suggest the following.  Groups having proposed ame ndments could perhaps get together with other 
Members and discuss them item-by-item.  Another option would be for the delegations objecting to 
the amendments to propose something which the othe r side could consider.  One should have a report 
that was factual and balanced for all Members.  Ni geria hoped that an agreement could be reached as 
soon as possible.  Perhaps one coul d use the weekend to reflect and come back on Monday with ideas 
on the best way to proceed. 
261. The representative of Egypt  wished to hear more about why some proposals were considered 
to be not factual.  One way of verifying whether they were factual was to go to the minutes of the 
meetings of the NG, look at some of the comment s that had been made earlier and see how they 
related to the very minor points that were suggest ed to be changed.  Some of the suggestions 
amounted to changing four or five words.  Both  the Core Group and the African Group had tried to 
remain factual in their proposed changes. Egypt wished to know why some of the proposals should 
constitute a divergence from the approach agreed on.   Egypt was not in full agreement with that. 
262. The representative of the Philippines , speaking on behalf of the Core Group , acknowledged 
the constructive comment by Nigeria and  thanke d the United States for its comments, which were 
also very constructive.  The Core Group would just like to clarify that the intention was to discuss 
factual refinements, relating to onl y five points.  There were some items that could be discussed also 
with the African Group and the LDCs to arrive at a common understanding.  With respect to the US 
comment about the listing of measures, which see med to be a factual one, the Core Group could 
engage in further discussions with the LDC Group and African Group to see whether one could come 
up with a common position.  The proposal to add the work "proposed", for instance, was a factual one 
that should be easy enough to resolve. 
263. The issue of any additional proposals could also be  just a factual item.  With respect to listing 
"experience papers" in a footnote, the Core Group acknowledged and thanked the United States for its 
remarks about that merely being a factual cha nge acknowledging the contributions already made.  
There were just one or two others that were cons idered to be not just factual, where a discussion 
would be constructive.  The Core Group remained engaged and ready to discuss things on a factual 
basis. 
264. The representative of Brazil  said that one was often confronted with a situation where 
Members did not agree with something they did no t want.  There was always questioning of the 
reasons for not wanting certain things.  That was also the case with respect to TF, only the other way 
round.  Argentina had made a proposal that Braz il supported.  The Core Group and the African Group 
had also made a proposal.  Brazil was ready to discuss it.  It would be easier to have those discussions 
if countries could say why they did not want certain things.  Members were close to reaching a final agreement and it would help to know what were the points at stake.  
265. The representative of Switzerland
 said that efforts should be made to go through all issues, 
item by item, to look at whether a suggested change was in fact factual or not, and then discuss it and 
arrive at a common sense on what would not be factual.  Easy elements such as adding a footnote could then perhaps be taken up. Members should remove as many obstacles as possible in the report 
that night.  TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 33 
 
 
266. The representative of Korea  wondered why certain proposals had not been accepted and why 
certain suggestions had been made. Korea wished to  hear more explanation and convincing arguments 
as to why the draft text should be amended in a certain way.  For example, why was it necessary to speak of "working towards common ground" instead of "building common ground"? More explanation and some reasoning would be appreciated as to why that was to be a factual reflection of 
the discussions.    
267. Korea also had some concerns and reservations w ith respect to the revised version of the draft 
text but had decided to accept it as it was in the spirit of moving forward.  What was more important was to discuss contents and commitments and to ensure S&D and TA&CB after the Hong Kong 
process.  There was not much value added in revi sing or correcting some words or phrases of the 
revised text.  Rather, one had to concentrate on what  were the contributions of all Members and what 
were the real contents to be discussed, and what ki nd of commitments should be reflected in the actual 
provisions or agreements on trade facilitation.  One had to bear in mind the general objective of the 
exercise. 
268. The Chair
 proposed to proceed along the following lines:  First, he requested those delegations 
that had proposals for amendments to put them in writing.  There seemed to be  a sense of delegations 
on both sides to try to come to an understanding on the various proposals.  He had received clear 
signals of willingness to listen, understand and see wh ether one could arrive at common ground.   
269. It was always very tempting for the Chair to suggest the establishment of a drafting group to 
try to sort out the differences.  But he had resi sted the idea of having a small group throughout the 
whole year.  One of the strong points in the NGTF wa s that it had managed to avoid that and that the 
process had been maintained at a 100 per cent tran sparent one.  The alternative to having a small 
group was for Members to engage with each other,  hear those proposals and concerns and look at 
some proposals to better understand them, rather than  engage in speech-making.  He proposed to 
provide time for delegations to consult with each other. 
270. At some stage, one would revert to the plenary and see where one stood.  His intentions had 
perhaps been misunderstood.  He would not want to  rush Members into an agreement.  What he 
would do would be to suspend the meeting so that Members would continue with the agenda that had 
been sent out.  The Group could then resume on 21 November.   
271.  He hoped that that would allow people to consu lt and to engage with each other.  Then, on 
21 November, hopefully, one could hear good news of Members having been able to arrive at an 
agreement.  In the meantime, he would request th e Secretariat to make itself available to assist 
Members in the consultations. If required, Members could also call on the Chair.   
272. The representative of Switzerland  sought a clarification. When meeting again to finalize the 
report to the TNC, would there also be discu ssion and finalization of the TF language for the 
Ministerial Declaration or did the Chair consider that to already have been agreed on?   
273. The Chair  said that whether both texts could be adopted would depend on Members.  If 
Members could agree on both the NG's report to the TNC and the Ministerial language, that would be 
ideal.  It was really up to Members.  Both do cuments should reflect the views of Members.    
274. The representative of Kenya  requested the Chair to change the meeting date as the African 
Trade Ministers would be meeting in Arusha, Tanzania from 21-24  November with most of the African Group officials therefore being in Tanzania at  that time.  Perhaps the meeting could be held a 
little earlier, so that the Trade Facilitation area would be settled by the time the Ministers left for 
Tanzania, which should not be a big problem.  It was just a problem of language. When sitting 
together in a smaller setting, Members would be ab le to come up with something that was acceptable 
to all. S&D for developing countries was somethi ng everybody had to take seriously.  Paragraph 7 TN/TF/M/11 
Page 34  
 
was important to all Members.  They were tr ying to operationalize S&D.  Members could not 
operationalize S&D in the current legal texts.  That should not happen with the TF report.  
275. The Chair
 said that language problems might indeed be part of the problem.   That was one 
more reason why he proposed that, instead of hi m chairing a drafting group, Members should engage 
with each other in order to make things crystal clear amongst everybody.  If the African Group did not 
find 21 November suitable, he would request the Secretariat to look for another date.  
276. The representative of Cuba  asked whether it was possible to circulate Members' proposals to 
all Members of the NG in written form.  There mi ght be convergence among the various proposals.  
Some of the differences might merely result from language problems.  Perhaps it was possible to 
achieve the necessary momentum when resuming the meeting.  An electronic version of the revised 
version of the report submitted earlier could allow Members to work better on that text in the 
meantime.  
277. The Chair  recalled the time constraints for agreeing on the texts.   
278. The representative of New Zealand  informed the NG that her delegation could accept the 
original draft provided by the Chair without ch anges. If further changes were introduced, New 
Zealand would have to reserve its right to seek changes as well.   
279. The Chair  said that the objective was to get everyone on board.  The Group would continue 
with this endeavour.  The date for resuming the me eting would be communicated to Members as soon 
as possible.  He hoped that those delegations who had come up with new proposals would make them 
available in electronic form so that they could be put forward to the rest of the Membership.  
280. He requested delegations to make available wh atever emerged from their consultations as 
soon as possible to the rest of the Group in orde r to practice transparency and inclusiveness.  
281. The Negotiating Group took note  of the statements made.       
282. The meeting was suspended . 
283. The meeting resumed  on 18 November.  
284. The Chair  recalled that since the meeting had been  suspended, the NG was still proceeding on 
the basis of the same agenda and its main item of finalizing the Group's report to the TNC.  Over the 
course of the discussions that had taken place in the context of the present meeting, Members had 
further inquired about the shape of the Ministerial Declaration in respect of  Trade Facilitation and 
sought the Chair's input on this matter, leading to the Chair giving Members a draft text also on that respect.   
285. He recalled that when suspending the meeti ng, he had urged Members to engage in 
consultations to see how they might come to an agreement on both TF elements of the Ministerial 
Declaration (Ministerial paragraph and report to th e TNC).  He was happy to report that on the basis 
of such intensive consultations which had been goi ng on and for which he was grateful for, Members 
had arrived at an agreement on both the draft mi nisterial language on trade facilitation and the report 
to the TNC in the form of room documents which ha d been circulated.  Since those texts had been the 
outcome of intensive consultations amongst Member s, and he understand there to be agreement on 
them, he would suggest to adopt the documents as  the NG's contribution to the draft ministerial 
language on trade facilitation as well as the Group's report to the TNC.  Before seeking their adoption, 
there was only a minor correction to be made vis-à-vis  one of the two room documents circulated to 
Members earlier.  A comma was to be added after th e word "and" in the first line of page 2 of the  TN/TF/M/11 
 Page 35 
 
 
draft of the Group's report to the TNC, so that the text would read "customs compliance; and," with 
the remaining part staying as shown in the circulated room document.    
286. He invited the NG to adopt the report to the TN C together with the Ministerial language.   
287. The Negotiating Group adopted  both texts.   
288. The representative of the European Communities  said that it was the Chair's work that had 
made the adoption of the two texts possible togeth er with the spirit of cooperation amongst Members 
and the hard work by the Secretariat.   All gr oups had worked hard, first trying to understand their 
own group, then trying to understand the other gr oup and then constantly communicating with each 
other.  Thanks were also particularly due to th e Chair for the masterful process leading not only to 
good texts but also providing a useful template for the rest of the process, both in terms of the spirit of 
cooperation and in architecture for the ministerial text.    
289. The representative of the Philippines , speaking on behalf of the African Group, the LDC 
Group, the ACP Group and the Core Group , fully supported both the revised report of the Negotiating 
Group to the TNC and the ministerial text.  Thanks were due to the Chair for having provided all  
groups with enough time to reflect on the changes Me mbers had proposed to the texts.  The extra time 
had been well spent with meetings with various gro ups in various configurations which had led to a 
better understanding and appreciation of the respective concerns, and which had enabled all groups to 
come up with a compromise solution.  Speaking also on behalf of the ASEAN Group , he thanked all 
groups, the Chair and the Secretariat for the good work done.   
290. The representative of Zambia  said that the LDC Group was very pleased to endorse the 
statement made by the Philippines on behalf of the Core Group, the African Group, the ACP Group 
and the LDC Group.  Zambia wished to thank all gr oups for the efforts in putting together the texts 
which enjoyed consensus from all Members.  Th e Secretariat also deserved recommendation for the 
hard work.  The LDC Group remained constr uctively engaged in the negotiations.    
291. The representative of Morocco, speaki ng on behalf of the African Group , fully supported the 
statement made by the Philippines, and the two texts.     
292. The representative of Canada , speaking also on behalf of Chile,  was pleased about the 
constructive environment created in the NG and the resulting consensus report and Ministerial Declaration.  It was very positive that both texts ha d emerged from the NG itself.  Thanks were due to 
all parties for their hard work.   
293. The representative of Mauritius
, speaking as the ACP coordinator , endorsed the statement by 
the Philippines and expressed thanks to all Groups  which had worked constructively together in 
producing the report.   
B. AD HOC ATTENDANCE OF RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS , INCLUDING THE 
IMF,  OECD,  UNCTAD,  WCO  AND THE WORLD BANK, AT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUP  
294. The Chair  suggested inviting relevant internationa l organizations, including the IMF, OECD, 
UNCTAD, WCO and the World Bank to attend the next meeting of the NG on an ad hoc  basis, as 
provided for in the Work Plan.   
295. It was so agreed . TN/TF/M/11 
Page 36  
 
C. O
THER BUSINESS  
296. No issue was raised under this item.  
297. The meeting was adjourned .  
_________