RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/M/102 
31 May 2010 
 
 (10-2973) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
21 MAY 2010 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Ambassador Mothae Anthony Maruping (Lesotho
) 
 
 
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3558 and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/633.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda.  
I.
 NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS.............................................1  
II. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS .............................................................................................2  
A. COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS – PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ............................2  
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996  CHANGES INTO WTO  SCHEDULES OF 
TARIFF CONCESSIONS – REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER .........................................2  
III. EUROPEAN UNION ENLARGEMENT:  PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE 
XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994........................................................................................................2  
A. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 1 MAY 2004.......................................................2  
B. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 1 JANUARY 2007 ...............................................3  
IV. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................. .3 
A. JAPAN - CONCERNS REGARDING THE FEED -IN TARIFF PROGRAMME OF THE PROVINCE 
OF ONTARIO , CANADA ................................................................................................................3  
B. CHINESE TAIPEI – CONCERNS REGARDING CE RTAIN ASPECTS OF CANADA 'S TARIFF 
REGIME ............................................................................................................................... .........5  
C. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING ......................................................................................................5  
 
I. NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1.1 The Chairman  recalled that, under the working procedures agreed by the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements following adoption by  the General Council of the Transparency 
Mechanism, the Council for Trade in Goods was to be  kept informed of Members' notifications of 
new regional trade agreements.  He informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements 
had been notified to the RTA Committee: 
A. Free Trade Agreement between  Honduras - El Salvador and the Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, notif ied in document WT/REG283/N/1;  and  
 B. Free Trade Agreement between  ASEAN, Aust ralia and New Zealand,  notified in document 
WT/REG284/N/1. 
 G/C/M/102 
Page 2  
 
  1.2 He Council took note
 of the information presented. 
 
II. MARKET ACCESS MATTERS 
2.1 The Chairman  noted that the Market Access Committee had forwarded two items for 
consideration to the Council for Trade in Goods.   
 
A. COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS – PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE  
2.2 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to the peri odic report of the Committee on Market 
Access contained in document G/MA/242.  The repor t was factual in nature, and reflected the work 
undertaken in the Market Access Committee.   
 
2.3 The Council took note  of the periodic report.   
 B. I
NTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996  CHANGES INTO WTO  SCHEDULES OF TARIFF 
CONCESSIONS – REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER  
2.4 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to the draft waiver decision circulated in document 
G/C/W/632 by Argentina, which had been made in connection with the introduction of HS1996 changes 
into WTO schedules of tariff concessions.  The cu rrent waiver decision was contained in document 
WT/L/757 and expired on 30 April 2010.  The one year extension of the waiver decision was the subject of consultations in the Market Access Co mmittee where it were considered at the formal 
meeting that took place on 29 April 2010.  It has been forwarded by that Committee to the CTG for 
action.  He proposed that the Council approves the draft waiver decision contained in G/C/W/632 and 
forward it to the General Council for adoption.  2.5 The Council approved
 the draft waiver decision contained in G/C/W/632 and agreed  to 
forward it to the General council for adoption. 
 
III. EUROPEAN UNION ENLARGEMENT:   PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE 
XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994  
3.1 The Chairman  informed Members that under this age nda item, the Council was to consider a 
request for extension of the time period for th e withdrawal of concessions for the two recent 
enlargements of the European Union.   
 
A. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 1 MAY 2004   
3.2 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to documen t G/L/695/Add.11 which concerned the 
accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004 of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Repub lic and Slovenia.  He re called that the General 
Council had on four earlier occasions, on the basis of similar communications from the EU, extended 
the deadline for withdrawal of concessions referre d to in Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994, namely, at 
its meetings in October 2004, and in March, June , and December 2005.  Similarly, the Council for 
Trade in Goods had extended the deadline on seven o ccasions, namely at its meetings of 12 July 2006, 
30 January, 21 May and 23 November 2007, 22 Ma y and 18 November 2008, and 29 June and 30 
October 2009.   
 
3.3 The representative of the European Union,  in referring to document G/L/695/Add.11, said 
that while negotiations had been finalised, the settin g of the banana tariff for the EU 25 did not yet 
have legal force as the Geneva Agreement on Banan as had not yet entered into force.  The EU had 
therefore circulated a message aimed at extended the period in which Members were allowed to  G/C/M/102 
 Page 3 
 
 
  withdraw substantial equivalent concessions.  The message itself was identical to the one which the 
CTG endorsed when extending the period for withdrawal  in the CTG of October 2009.  This time his 
delegation was requesting an extens ion to 1 February 2011 to finalise the entry into force of the 
Banana Agreement.    
3.4 The Council took note
 of the statement made and also of the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/695/Add.11.  It agreed  on the extension of the deadline as set out in the EU's document 
G/L/695/Add.11.    B. E
NLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON 1 JANUARY 2007   
3.5 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to documen ts G/L/821/Add.6 which concerned the 
accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007 of  Bulgaria and Romania.  He recalled that the 
Council for Trade in Goods had extended the deadline on five occasions, namely at its meetings of 21 
May and 23 November 2007, 22 May and 18 Nove mber 2008, and 29 June and 30 October 2009. 
 
3.6 The representative of the European Union,  referring to the 2007 enlargement and its 
communication with reference G/L/821/Add.6, said that the negotiations following the 2007 
enlargement were currently ongoing.  Agreements had been reached at negotiators' levels with all but 
one WTO Member.  Due to this one ongoing negotiation,  as well as the time period required to ensure 
that the entry into force of the Agreements was already reached, another extension of the period in 
which Members were allowed to withdraw substantia lly equivalent concessions was necessary.   The 
EU, therefore, circulated a message aimed at extending the period in which Members were allowed to 
withdraw substantially equivalent concessions to 1 January 2011.  The message itself was identical to 
the one which the CTG endorsed when extending the period of withdrawal in the CTG meeting in 
October 2009.  
3.7 The Council took note
 of the statement made and also of the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/821/Add.6.  It agreed  on the extension of the dead line as set out in the European 
Union's document G/L/821/Add.6.   
IV. OTHER BUSINESS 
A. J
APAN - CONCERNS REGARDING THE FEED -IN TARIFF PROGRAMME OF THE PROVINCE OF 
ONTARIO , CANADA  
4.1 The representative of Japan  said that his delegation had con cerns regarding the Feed-In Tariff 
(FIT) program of the Province of Ontario, Canada.  The Province of Ontario established its FIT program in May 2009 through the enactment of th e Green Energy Act, 2009.  FIT programs were 
policy mechanisms designed to encourage the adopt ion of renewable energy sources.  Although these 
programs were structured differently from country  to country, many national and local governments 
were moving toward adopting some form of this policy, viewing it as a promising way to achieve 
green growth while combating climate change.  4.2 With regard to Ontario’s FIT program, hi s delegation was seriously concerned about its 
requirement for the use of domestic content in  order to be eligible for the program ( i.e., its "local 
content requirement").  The following was his delega tion's understanding with regard to this program. 
 
• Schedule B, Section 7, of the Green Energy  Act, 2009, added Section 25.35(3) to the 
Electricity Act, 1998, providing that: "Where the Minister has issued a direction under subsection (1), the Minister shall issue, and the OPA [Ontario Power Authority] shall follow 
in preparing its feed-in tariff program, directi ons that set out the goals relating to domestic 
content to be achieved during the peri od to be covered by the program". G/C/M/102 
Page 4  
 
   
• On September 24, 2009, Deputy Premier George Smit herman issued a directive stating:  "It is 
also important that the feed-in tariff program provide an opportunity for Ontario manufactures 
to participate in the economic benefits that w ill flow from the program.  Therefore, I direct 
the OPA to require that each wind power and solar PV project and solar microFIT project 
contain a defined percentage of domestic cont ent. […] Domestic content provisions will be 
enforced through the FIT Contract. Develope rs who do not achieve the domestic content 
requirements should be subject to signifi cant commercial consequences under the FIT 
contract". 
 4.3 In this regard, his delegation had the follo wing questions related to the disciplines in the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GAT T 1994) and the Agreement on Trade-Related 
Investment Measures (TRIMs).   How was the local  content requirement in Ontario’s FIT program 
consistent with Article III of GATT 1994, and Article 2 and the Annex of  TRIMs?  In this regard, he 
added that these provisions were illustrative and not  exhaustive, and he noted that Japan also 
registered its concerns with respect to the FIT pr ogram of the Province of Ontario, Canada at the 
regular meeting of Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures on 27 April 2010 in 
document G/SCM/136 of 22 April 2010.  More specifically,  he asked: 
 (a) How was the local content requirement of th e Ontario’s FIT program consistent with 
the obligation under Article III 4 of GA TT 1994 to accord "treatment [to imported 
products] no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in 
respect of all laws, regulations and requirem ents affecting their internal sale, offering 
for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use"? 
(b) How was the local content requirement of th e Ontario’s FIT program consistent with 
the obligations under Article III 5 of GATT 1994 not to "establish or maintain any 
internal quantitative regulation relating to the mixture, processing or use of products 
in specified amounts or proportions which requires, directly or indirectly, that any 
specified amount or proportion of any produc t which is the subject of the regulation 
must be supplied from domestic sources" and not to "otherwise apply internal quantitative regulations in a manner contrary to the principles set forth in paragraph 1"? 
(c) How was the local content requirement of th e Ontario’s FIT program consistent with 
the obligation under Article 2.1 of TRIMs not to "apply any TRIM that is inconsistent 
with the provisions of Article III or Article XI of GATT 1994", as further illustrated by paragraph 1(a) of the Annex to TRIMs? 
4.4 His delegation appreciated the objective of FIT programs to realize sustainable and 
environmentally friendly economic growth, but it also believed that any FIT program should be 
designed and implemented in a manner that wa s consistent with the WTO Agreements.  His 
delegation was seriously concerned that even one  FIT program which contained a local content 
requirement might trigger the introduction of ot her FIT programs which contained local content 
requirements, and might result in the proliferation of local content requirements in the future.  His 
delegation would appreciate Canada ’s responses to its questions. 
 
4.5 The representative of Canada
 recalled that this programme was a provincial programme 
established by the Province of Ontario.  The Government of Canada was supportive of the Government of Ontario's efforts to increase the cont ribution of renewable energy to Ontario's energy 
supplies.  Trade policy officials in her Government  continued to review the act to assess the concerns 
expressed by trade partners regarding the Green En ergy Act, including with the respect to the FIT  G/C/M/102 
 Page 5 
 
 
  program.  Canada had relayed Japan's questions to the Government of Ontario and was working 
closely with the Province to provide responses as soon as possible.    4.6 The Council took note
 of the statements made. 
 
B. CHINESE TAIPEI – CONCERNS REGARDING CE RTAIN ASPECTS OF CANADA 'S TARIFF REGIME  
4.7 The representative of Chinese Taipei  raised a concern related to  trade measures provided by 
Canada.  Canada had long been a major trading part ner of Chinese Taipei.  Since 2005, the value of  
bilateral trade between the two countries had exceeded US$3 billion and continued to grow.  
Currently, Chinese Taipei was one of Canada's major trading partners and his delegation was keen to 
pursue an even closer trade relation with Cana da.  However, Canada's tariff regime provided 
discriminatory treatment against products from Ch inese Taipei when they competed with products 
from other countries with comparable economic devel opment.  Canada imposed higher tariff rates on 
some of products from Chinese Taipei while applyi ng lower rates on the same products originating 
from some Members whose per capita GDP was highe r than that of Chinese Taipei.  Since acceding 
to the WTO in 2002, his delegation had continuously consulted with Canada to resolve this issue.  
Unfortunately, thus far, it had not found any positi ve response to its request.  His delegation urged 
Canada to favourably consider its request by providing Chinese Taipei with non-discriminatory 
treatment as it had done with other Members that were at comparable econom ic development levels. 
 4.8 The representative of Canada
 noted that her Government already had very low tariff barriers.  
Canada had put in place significant tariff reduction m easures in its last two federal budgets.  In budget 
2009, the Government eliminated MFN applied tariffs in a wide range of machinery and equipment.  
In budget 2010, the Government announced the elimin ation of all remaining MFN applied tariffs on 
machinery and equipment as well as manufacturing i nputs including all textile input products, fibres, 
yarns, fabrics and sewing threads.  With these tw o measures combined, close to 7 billion Canadian 
dollars worth of dutiable imports had been liberalis ed to the benefit of a wide range of Members 
including Chinese Taipei.  4.9 The Council took note
 of the statements made. 
 C. D
ATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
4.10 The Chairman  informed the Council that the next m eeting was scheduled to take place on 
Monday, 5 July 2010.  The agenda would close on Friday, 25 June 2010.  4.11 The meeting was adjourned
. 
 
 
  
__________