WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/GC/M/132 
21 September 2011  
 
(11-4550) 
General Council 
27 July 2011  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard 
on 27 July 2011 
 
Chairman:  M. Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria) 
 
 Subjects discussed:
1 Page 
 
1.  Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee .......................................... 2  
2.  Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the 
Dedicated Session of the Committ ee on Trade and Development ........................................ 3  
3.  Aid for Trade – Report by the Director-General on the Third Global Review .................. 4  
4.  Work Programme on E-commerce ....................................................................................... 11  
(a)  Effective participation of developing countries in electronic commerce as a means to 
combat poverty – Communication from Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua .................................. 11  
(b)  Review of progress ............................................................................................................ ....... 15 
5.  Eighth Session of the Ministerial Conference – Statement by the Chairman ................... 16  
6.  Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Report on meetings of 
June and July 2011 ............................................................................................................ ..... 22 
7.  Waivers under Article IX of  the WTO Agreement .............................................................. 24  
(a)  Review of waivers pursuant to Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement ...................................... 24  
(i)  LDCs – Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Ag reement with respect to pharmaceutical 
products, granted on 8 July 2002 until 1 January 2016 ........................................................... 24  
(ii)  Preferential tariff treatment for least-d eveloped countries, granted on 27 May 2009 
until 30 June 2019 ............................................................................................................ ......... 24 
(iii) European Union – Preferences for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia 
and Montenegro, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, granted on 28 July 2006 until 31 December 2011 ...................................................................................... 24  
(iv)  European Union – Application of autonomous preferential treatment to Moldova, 
granted on 7 May 2008 until 31 December 2013 ..................................................................... 24  
(v)  Mongolia – Export duties on raw cashm ere, granted on 27 July 2007 until 
29 January 2012 ............................................................................................................... ........ 24 
(vi)  United States – Former Territory of the Pacific  Islands, granted on 27 July 2007 until 
31 December 2016 .............................................................................................................. ...... 24 
(vii) United States – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, granted on 27 May 2009 
until 31 December 2014 ........................................................................................................ .... 24 
                                                      
1 The Proposed Agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/636. WT/GC/M/132 
Page 2  
 
  (viii) United States – African Growth and Opport unity Act, granted on 27 May 2009 until 
30 September 2015 ............................................................................................................. ....... 24 
(ix)  United States – Andean Trade Preference Act, granted on 27 May 2009 until 
31 December 2014 .............................................................................................................. ...... 24 
8.  International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO – Report of the Joint Advisory 
Group on its Forty-fourth Session ......................................................................................... 31  
9.  Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Lao People's 
Democratic Republic – Statem ent by the Chairman ........................................................... 32  
10.  Chairmanships of the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of 
the Committee on Trade and Environment – Statement by the Chairman ...................... 32  
11.  Administrative Measures for Members in arrears – Statement by the Chairman ........... 32  
ANNEX I - Statements by delegations at the informal meeting  of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee  on 26 July 2011 ............................................................................................................... .. 34 
ANNEX II  - Statement by China at the informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee  on 31 May 2011 ................................................................................................................ . 47 
ANNEX III  - Statement by China at the informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee on 22 June 2011 ..................................................................................................... ........... 48  
ANNEX IV - Statements by delegations at the meeting of the Third Global Review of 
Aid for Trade  on 19 July 2011 ............................................................................................................ 49  
 
1. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
1. The Chairman invited the Director-General, as Chairman of the TNC, to report on the TNC's 
activities since his last report to the Council. 
2. The Director-General said2 that since the last meeting of the General Council, the TNC had 
met in informal mode on three occasions in May, June and more recently, the previous day.  His full 
remarks at those meetings had been circulated in  documents JOB/TNC/11, 12 and 14.  He did not 
intend to repeat fully what he had said at those meetings, but would highlight a few points.  At the 
May meeting, following agreement at the April TNC that he undertake consultations on the next steps 
after the circulation of the Easter documents, he had reported to the membership on his consultations, 
including on how to approach the substantive issues.   While Members had faced up to the reality that 
the Doha Round could not be completed in its entir ety by 2011, as had been anticipated, there had 
been strong determination not to give up on the DDA and to work towards preserving the credibility 
of the multilateral trading system.  There had been unity of purpose that MC8 should deliver some 
results in the Doha Round in line w ith Paragraph 47 of the Doha Declar ation.  Several delegations had 
also emphasized the need for clarity  on the roadmap for work in th e DDA after MC8.  At the TNC at 
the end of June he had reported on his further consultations with respect to Members' targets for 
December.  In order to facilitate an outcome on the LDC-specific issues of Duty-Free, Quota-Free 
Market Access, associated Rules of Origin, a step  on Cotton, and the LDC Services Waiver, he had 
put forward for the consideration of Members a n on-exhaustive list of topics that could form the 
elements of a small package of DDA deliverables by  MC8.  He had also stressed that this was an 
indicative list that did not preclude other issues from being worked upon and eventually delivered by the end of year. 
3. A third meeting of the TNC had been held th e previous day.  He had reported on further 
consultations to explore the possibility of an LDC-Pl us package by the end of the year and to discuss 
the next steps in the DDA after the summer break.  He had shared with Members what he had sensed 
                                                      
2 The statement was subsequently ci rculated in document JOB/GC/10.  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 3 
 
 
  during his consultations as a collective assessment  that the LDC-Plus package, as Members had 
framed it in May, was not shaping up as Members had wished.  He had suggested that Members should now focus on the two tracks of non-DDA i ssues and the DDA agenda post-MC8 where 
structures already existed for work.  He had also s uggested that in parallel, Members keep working on 
possible DDA deliverables that could respond to the aspir ations of LDCs by MC8.  In addition, he had 
suggested that Chairs of Negotiating Groups cont inue work in their r espective areas where they 
judged that progress could be made.  The meeting ha d endorsed this course of action.  It had also 
endorsed the need to develop a shared diagnosis over the current impasse in the Doha Development 
Agenda, which was at the heart of the negotiating function of the WTO, as a means to prepare a 
discussion over possible solutions as well as over emerging issues.  As he had indicated at the 
meeting, he would, after the summer recess, intens ify his consultations to that effect, to prepare 
Ministers for a discussion at MC8. 
4. The Chairman invited any delegation that wished  the statement it made at the informal TNC 
meeting the previous day to be included in the Minutes of the present meeting to communicate this 
directly to the Secretariat.3 
5. The representative of Colombia said that, judgi ng by the Director-General's comments, the 
various statements made and previous discussions , the likelihood of success in putting together a 
small Doha Round package for submission at the next Ministerial Conference would appear to be low.  
That was a fact that all Members had to take on boar d.  The Director-General had suggested that work 
should continue with the aim of producing a number of deliverables for the benefit of LDCs at the 
Ministerial Conference.  To that end all initiativ es should be examined and all avenues explored 
objectively.  As soon as the summer recess was over,  Members should concentrate their efforts on 
making adequate preparations for the Conference and discussing the post-December phase of the Doha Round.  This urgent, necessary task would en able them to focus the debate on matters of 
fundamental importance.  Finally, Colombia would caution against persisting in unfeasible 
approaches, which would serve only to exacerbate divisions and polarization among Members.  The 
success of the Eighth Ministerial Conference and the integrity of this Orga nization should not be 
jeopardized. 
6. The General Council took note of the Director-General's report and of the statement. 
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
7. The Chairman said that in line with the frame work and procedures agreed by the General 
Council in 2002, the Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the General 
Council's agenda and the Committee on Trade and De velopment reported regularly to the Council on 
the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on this subject.  He invited Mr Maruping (Lesotho), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD, to  report on the progress of work in this area. 
8. Mr Maruping (Lesotho), Chairman of the Dedi cated Session of the CTD, said that since his 
last report to the General Council in May, the pr oponents of SVEs had continued to follow the 
developments in all areas under negotiation in the Doha  Round and in the regular WTO bodies.  In the 
face of the critical challenges the DDA has encount ered, the SVEs were poised to remain engaged 
actively and constructively in mapping the way forward in the months ahead.  For the SVE 
proponents, this meant continuing to monitor develo pments of interest to them across the negotiating 
areas under discussion.  They had also been following  work related to Aid for Trade and were further 
defining an SVE framework on Aid for Trade.  They  had also been very active the previous week 
during the Third Global Review of Aid for Trade, esp ecially with regard to the three regional sessions 
                                                      
3 Such statements are reproduced in  Annex I to the present records. WT/GC/M/132 
Page 4  
 
  dealing with Aid for Trade in Latin America and the Caribbean, in Africa and in the Pacific.  In the 
months ahead, the proponents of SVEs would focus on preparations for the report the CTD in Dedicated Session would make to the General Coun cil for forwarding to MC8 in December. This 
would be the third such report since the start of the Work Programme on SVEs in 2002.   As could be 
seen, the SVEs were continuing with their pro-active engagement, and wished to intensify their efforts 
in this regard. 
9. The representative of Barbados, on behalf of the SVEs, thanked the Chair of the CTD in 
Dedicated Session for his report.  As that report highlighted, since May, SVE delegations had been 
monitoring discussions related to the Doha Round negotiations as well as other WTO regular bodies.  
In addition, through the presence of a number of th eir Ministers, Vice-Ministers and Senior Officials 
the previous week, their delegations had been par ticularly active during the Third Global Review of 
Aid for Trade (AFT), and wished to commend the Di rector-General and his team for the successful 
staging of this event.  The Third Global Review ha d provided a useful opportunity for all Members to 
focus on the results of the initiativ e in their respective countries.  The results of the monitoring and 
evaluation exercise confirmed that the impact of AFT in SVEs had been encouraging.  It also 
provided the SVEs with an invaluable opportunity  to identify shortcomings or areas in which 
improvements were clearly needed and ways in wh ich AFT could be better leveraged to address the 
particular and unique trade-capacity challenges the SVEs  faced.  In this rega rd, they concurred with 
the Director-General's assessment on the need for the future work programme to focus on several key 
themes, which included, among others, greater resour ce mobilization, better effo rts at mainstreaming, 
leveraging of AFT with other more innovative sour ces of finance, promoting South-South cooperation 
and regional integration.  The SVEs hoped that a focus on these themes, among others, would assist in 
making the impact of AFT in SVEs more effective in the future.  As one looked towards MC8, the 
SVEs, like other Members, had been involved in a range of consultations and exchanges regarding 
various dimensions of the Doha Round and what co uld be achieved within the context of the Round, 
as well as other substantive areas to constitute a vi able package for MC8.  In the latter regard, the 
SVEs would be working within the CTD Dedicated S ession to consider how best to reflect, in any 
report to Ministers, the progress and priorities of the Small Economies Work Programme since MC7.  Since the start of the Work Programme in 2002, this framework and the CTD Dedicated Session had 
provided critical avenues for the SVE delegations to  pursue a common negotiating platform to address 
their special trade and negotiating interests and th e fuller integration of their economies into the 
multilateral trading system.  The SVEs looked forwar d to continuing their work with Members in the 
Dedicated Session after the summer break. 
10. The General Council took note of the report of the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statement. 
3. Aid for Trade – Report by the Director-General on the Third Global Review 
11. The Chairman recalled that the First Global Review of Aid for Trade had taken place in 
November 2007 and the Second Global Review in July 2009.  He invited the Director-General to 
report on this important event. 
12. The Director-General said he wished to start by thanking delegations, and in particular pay 
tribute to the many capital-based officials and Mi nisters who had come to Geneva to share their 
experience at the previous week's Third Global Review of Aid for Trade.  Members had emerged stronger from the two days of experience sharing,  and now had an encouraging narrative, which 
recounted how they were building trade capacity, not just for the short or medium-term, but 
importantly for the long-term.  Members were in a be tter position for the results they had been able to 
showcase, and for mobilizing so many resources a nd expertise in the development and business 
communities.  This had not gone unnoticed.  Member s were also better placed for having debated, 
openly and frankly, the shortcomings of current approaches and practices, both with regard to the  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 5 
 
 
  allocation and the implementation of Aid for Trade.  He would not dwell on the meeting itself.  All 
information was available on the WTO website and a comprehensive report was being prepared for 
distribution to all.  He wished to focus instead on the way forward and to recall the points he had 
made in his closing remarks on next steps.  Memb ers had to build on the success of the meeting by 
using the positive momentum generated to the maximu m extent.  The theme of "transcending artificial 
boundaries" was one he wished to see form the ce ntrepiece of the new work programme.  It meant 
remaining true to the mandate.  Actions here coul d include strengthening the analysis of how Aid for 
Trade could support areas such as Services, Standards and IP issues, but it also meant recognizing the 
intersections of the initiative with other areas that were essential to sustainable development, such as 
food security, gender empowerment, climate change adap tation or energy, to name a few.   This was 
why he wished to see the work programme ahead based around the theme of "Deepening Coherence". 
13. Moving forward, he suggested that the follo wing areas be examined.  First, on resource 
mobilization:  this objective had to remain at th e core of the initiative.  The Seoul G-20 commitment 
to maintain Aid for Trade resources at 2006-2008 leve ls needed to be combined with new thinking as 
to how one leveraged this funding with additional sources of financing,  in particular at a time when 
national budgets were increasingly constrained.  Th is implied looking beyond traditional international 
concessional funding and examining, inter alia , leveraging financing from the private sector.  It was 
also necessary to sustain the thrust on ensuring adequate trade finan ce, in the light of the gaps in some 
regions following the economic crisis.  On Mainstr eaming, progress was clear, but as he had said the 
previous week, it was not a one-off process.  Member s needed to consider how they could support the 
process of mainstreaming across developing-countr y Members, with technical assistance as well as 
through the Enhanced Integrated Framework for the LD Cs.  In the area of engaging the private sector, 
development agencies did not sell into global value chains.  There was no point in building a value 
chain if there was no buyer at the end of it.  Memb ers needed to be more hard-headed about ensuring 
that projects did indeed develop trade flows, and not just capacity – and flows that lasted after the end 
of the project.  In reality, Aid for Trade was as much about the need to generate "Investment for 
Trade".  The Third Global Review was the first to really make this case. On aid effectiveness, this 
needed  to feature more centrally in Aid for Trad e.  The Fourth High Level Forum on Aid 
Effectiveness in Busan, Korea to be held in November  was a key milestone in this regard.  This event 
should help Members to carry forward the moment um the Third Global Review had generated on 
showing results and the need for better implementa tion and monitoring, notably through results-based 
management.  This was indispensable for acc ountability reasons, both for donors and partners.  
Evaluation needed ownership on the ground, and one could do a better job by ensuring that the way 
one measured results was owned by both sides, thus ensuring a better alignment with countries' needs.  
14. South-South co-operation needed to be taken to a higher level.  Members had a good record to 
show, but more could be done in  knowledge transfer and in sh aring skills.  Finally, Regional 
Integration had emerged in all sessions as an ar ea of success and on-going challenge.  It should 
feature prominently again in the forthcoming work  programme, including support to the work of the 
regional development banks who year after year had taken a growing role in Aid for Trade.  These 
were his views, but what counted now was that Members work out the details, not today and here, but when they returned after the summer break.  He tr usted that under the expert guidance of the Chair of 
the CTD, Members would be able to complement his report of the Third Global Review with a new work programme for 2012-13 which would take Members up to and beyond the Fourth Aid for Trade 
Review in two years' time.  His recommendation w as that Members use this time wisely and come 
back with fresh ideas and thinking.  This would then  enable them to review the Third Global Review's 
results and the forward-looking work  programme at MC8 in December. 
15. All delegations who spoke thanked the Directo r-General for his statement and congratulated 
him, DDG Rugwabiza and the Secretariat for the Third Global Review of Aid for Trade. WT/GC/M/132 
Page 6  
 
  16. The Chairman suggested that in the interests of efficiency, Me mbers not seek to replicate at 
the present meeting the discussion held during Session  10 of the Third Global Review, and that any 
delegation that wished the statement it made on the af ternoon of 19 July to be reflected in the records 
of the present meeting to communicate this directly to the Secretariat.4 
17. The representative of Lesotho said the Director-General's statement on the Third Global 
Review of Aid for Trade reflected very well the inputs, process and outputs and outcomes of the 
review, which had been well organized and efficiently co-ordinated, and had maintained focus.  It had 
become clear that Aid for Trade was working.  It simply needed consolidation and fine-tuning.  An 
emphasis on results remained the road to pursue.  Lesotho wished to underline how prominently the 
Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) for LDCs ha d featured during the Third Global Review.  There 
had been the premier screening of the documentary showing the work of EIF at the grassroots level in 
LDCs.  The film showed how directly the EIF positively touched the lives of the poorest among the 
poor and improved their lives.  It showed results in th e field.  The EIF had also been able to hold two 
sessions, one for the EIF Trust Fund contributors, actua l and potential, and the relevant agencies, and 
the other for the LDCs.  Both had been well atte nded.  All had been briefed on the progress being 
made and had had the opportunity to share experi ences, seek clarifications and make constructive 
proposals.  There had also been th e launching, by the Director-Gen eral and the UNDP Administrator, 
of the joint publication by the EIF and UNDP: “Tra de and Human Development: A Practical Guide to 
mainstreaming Trade”.  The EIF was now in full throttle and moving full-steam ahead. 
18. The representative of Brazil congratulated a ll the Members and Observers, international 
financial institutions, regional or ganizations, private sector representatives, and other interested 
entities that had taken part in the Third Global Re view by submitting an impressive number of case 
studies and questionnaires, which had enabled the revi ew to be so successful.  The importance of the 
Aid-for-Trade initiative, in guaranteeing that trade lib eralization was translated into a more inclusive 
international trading system, coul d hardly be overestimated.  Among the many findings of the Third 
Global Review was the recognition of the growing importance of the regional dimension and of 
South-South cooperation, which were the main driver s of Brazil's activities in Aid for Trade.  Based 
on a horizontal approach, such cooperation be nefited from a clearer understanding of the 
opportunities and challenges facing other developing countries, as well as from a deeper knowledge of 
local realities – cultural, political and technologi cal.  South-South cooperation was an important 
means for partner countries to achieve the M illennium Development Goals with both economic 
growth and poverty alleviation.  For Brazil, Sout h-South cooperation had some particularities that 
differentiated it from the traditional forms of Official  Development Assistance.  Brazil's projects had 
no hindering conditionalities attached to them, nor any restrictions to transfer of technologies, which 
had been developed under similar socio-economic  conditions.  Furthermore, its activities were 
demand-driven and conceived with fu ll participation of its partners.  In this regard, he recalled the 
example of the Cotton-4 Project, aimed at increasing output and efficiency of the cotton production 
chain in Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali.   Fi nally, Brazil was of the view that each Member 
should contribute in a proportional manner, commen surate with its respective capabilities.  Even 
though in financial terms Brazil's cooperation was limited, its projects had proven highly effective.  
Brazil strongly believed that South-South coopera tion could be an effective means of addressing 
supply-side constraints of devel oping-country Members in a cost-efficient and socially responsive 
manner. 
19. The representative of the Dominican Republic congratulated the Director-General on the 
success of the Third Global Review, as regards both attendance and the interesting topics covered in 
panels and presentations by highly qualified expert s.  His delegation appreciated this initiative and 
hoped that future reviews would be characterized by  similar platforms and levels of qualification.  
However, his delegation had to express some concer n about the statistical information contained in 
                                                      
4 Such statements are reproduced in Annex IV to the present records.  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 7 
 
 
  the document Aid for Trade At a Glance 2011  prepared by the Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development (OEC D) and the WTO, such as the calculation methodology used to 
obtain the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, measured by purchasing power parity (PPP).  In 
the case of the Dominican Republic, which appear ed on page 238, the document showed a GDP per 
capita PPP of US$8,433 in current dollars for 2009, a y ear of deepening global economic crisis.  This 
high figure contrasted with the one given by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in its latest Staff 
report on his country in which, on page 40, in the table headed "Selected Economic Indicators", GDP per capita (2008 PPP) was shown as US$5,122.  Even  with a time-lag of one year, the difference 
between these two figures was 64 per cent, which was fa irly significant.  Also, the World Bank, in the 
Dominican Republic statistics on its website, showed  a gross national income (GNI) per capita of 
US$4,550, as measured by the Atlas method.  Although obtained by different methodologies, the two 
results showed a substantial difference of 85 per cent. 
20. It was of concern to his delegation that intern ational organizations s howed greatly differing 
figures for the same or similar economic indicators,  especially since the member countries of the IMF 
used the latter's methodology in the computation of national accounts, and the IMF was also the 
institution that annually monitored and validated t hose results.  His delegation's concern was all the 
greater in that this variable was used to classify a country based on its income, and this classification 
was used to allocate Aid for Trade resources.  As s hown in Figure 2.4, "Aid for trade by income group 
and category", on page 50 of the OECD/WTO doc ument, Lower Middle Income Countries (LMICs) 
received between six and seven times more aid than  did Upper Middle Income Countries (UMICs).  
The figure of US$8,433 would seem to place the Do minican Republic, which was classified as an 
LMIC, on the borderline between the LMICs and the UMICs.  He stressed "would seem", because in 
the document one found countries classified as UMICs,  such as Suriname (page 334) with a GDP per 
capita, PPP, of US$7,459, lower than that of the Dominican Republic. 
21. On the other hand, it seemed contradictory to  allocate resources based on per capita income 
and not on the UNDP Human Development Index (HD I), which better reflecte d countries' levels of 
poverty and institutional development.  For example, Suriname was ranked 94
th out of 169 countries 
in 2009, while Colombia, which w as classified as an LMIC, was in 69th place.  Therefore, his 
delegation considered it more appropriate to use an indicator such as the HDI for the purposes of 
distributing Aid for Trade.  One could also find that, in the document, the Dominican Republic had 4.4 per cent of its population living in extreme poverty, while according to the IMF indicators, the corresponding figure was 13 per cent. 
22. Lastly, he wished to refer to Figure 2.1 on page 48, which showed the Aid for Trade 
commitments by activity.  This Figure showed that activities related to Trade Policy and Regulations and to Trade-related Adjustment (adjustments to producer and tax revenues caused by trade 
liberalization reforms) were receiving minimal amounts of resources.  These two activities were 
extremely important in the early stages of liberali zation reform, for the building and strengthening of 
regulations, processes and institutions, as well as s upport for adjustment, in order to attenuate its 
effects and achieve a national environment more c onducive to the acceptance of change.  They were 
also essential for countries newly acceding to the WT O, particularly for LDCs and SVEs, so that 
increasing the resources for these two activities would be an important factor in facilitating that 
process. 
23. The representative of Ecuador recalled that in the course of the Third Global Review, a large 
majority of Members had stressed the importance of the fact that flows of assistance should be 
intended to satisfy the needs of the recipients, and that these flows should be predictable and 
incremental.  Ecuador wished to stress the importa nce of these funds for capac ity-building in the area 
of trade, for ensuring compliance with multilateral co mmitments and in order to ensure that Members 
could take advantage of their rights accruing under th e covered agreements.  Therefore, it wished to WT/GC/M/132 
Page 8  
 
  thank the Members and donor organizations, while at  the same time expressing the hope that they 
would renew their commitment to Aid for Trade. 
24. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group,  said the present statement 
was in addition to the one his delegation had made  for the LDC Group at the Third Global Review on 
19 July 20115.  The LDC Group wished to laud the Director-General for organizing the Third Global 
Review of Aid for Trade.  His statement capture d many of the salient points covered during the 
review.  However, there were a number of a dditional and forward-looking recommendations made 
during the review process which could have been bette r reflected in the report.  The LDCs hoped that 
as the review was an ongoing process, there would be  further opportunities to consider the various 
recommendations emanating from the Third Global Review in greater detail during the inter-sessional 
period as part of the future work programme.  They requested the Secretariat to  ensure that the whole 
range of recommendations made during the review was recorded and preserved for further necessary action and reference.  The LDCs wished to draw  attention particularly to those recommendations 
made in connection with discussions on monitoring and evaluation of the impact of Aid for Trade.  As 
the Third Global Review had generally indicated th at Aid for Trade had started demonstrating results, 
it would be critical at this juncture to develop appropriate monitoring and evaluation tools with a view 
to ensuring the tangible, qualitative impact of Ai d for Trade while remaining objective about its 
quantitative value and volume.  The LDCs wished  to underscore the importance of ensuring aid 
effectiveness and of mobilizing additional, predictable and flex ible financing to sustain the 
momentum of AFT initiatives. 
25. The Third Global Review had been a success in te rms of gathering a number of high-profile 
and expert speakers on various panels.  It would, how ever, be advisable to pay greater attention to the 
structure and time management of the panel discussions .  Again, in order to maintain cohesiveness in 
the discussions during individual panels, it would perh aps be useful to limit the number of speakers, 
allowing for a free flow of exchange of views amon gst them.  It was particularly disappointing that 
there had been very limited, and often no, opportuni ty for the audience, especially Members, to take 
part in the discussions or interact with the pane lists.  The instructions regarding statements and 
interactive discussions had also not been clear.  The LDC Group hoped that these suggestions would 
be taken in the spirit of further improving the conten t and structure of future such reviews.  On the 
whole, they wished to commend the Secretariat for the hard work done to organize a successful 
Global Review. 
26. The representative of Korea said his delegati on was pleased to note that the Third Global 
Review had been a great success.  Korea a ppreciated and commended the tireless efforts the 
Director-General, the Secretariat and other stakehol ders had made to make that happen.  It also 
endorsed the Director-General's view that Members would need to put the aid effectiveness agenda 
more centrally in the Aid-for-Trade initiative.  In  this regard, Korea recalled that it would host the 
fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan in November 2011.  It hoped that this forum 
would provide a good opportunity for the internati onal community to further enhance the quality and 
effectiveness of aid and development.  His government would continue to do its best to ensure that the 
event would mark another milestone in the area of aid effectiveness. 
27. The representative of Peru said it was good that the impetus given to Aid for Trade in the 
WTO had translated into substantial financial commitments, and the presentation of 269 case stories 
had shown Members best practices as well as the tasks ahead.  Aid for Trade was very important to 
developing countries like Peru, where there were pressing needs in terms of building and 
strengthening physical and regulatory infrastruct ure, trade facilitation and capacity building to 
improve competitiveness and participation in the global  trading system.  Peru therefore welcomed the 
positive and forward-looking outcomes of this Globa l Review.  Regarding Aid for Trade received by 
                                                      
5  Reproduced in Annex IV to the present records.  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 9 
 
 
  the Latin American region, the figures showed that it was the region that received the least 
cooperation, perhaps due to the fact that it was la rgely made up of middle-income countries.  He 
referred in this connection to the deliberations ta king place in the United Nations system and at the 
ongoing ECOSOC meeting in Geneva, where thought was being given to whether it would be valid to 
use per capita GDP as a gauge of development leve ls for the purposes of allocating cooperation 
resources.  In this regard, international trade had been of the utmost importance to his country in 
recent years, together with other factors, in reduci ng poverty by almost 50 per cent to 30 per cent.  Yet 
in several regions of Peru, poverty levels were s till above the national average, in some cases higher 
than 60 per cent.  For this reason and in order to forge ahead with development that ensured social 
equity, Peru believed that Aid for Trade could pl ay a pivotal role in boosting trade and hence in 
achieving such important Millennium Development Go als as poverty reduction.  Peru therefore called 
for a review of these indicators. 
28. The representative of Japan said that through sharing good practices and case studies 
Members had shown positive result in the review.  Ai d for Trade was all about taking those in need on 
board to the multilateral trading system.  Deeper coherence was still need amongst stakeholders and 
Members should especially engage the private sector in this initiative.  Also more investment for 
trade, more productive capacity as well as balanced and sustainable growth should be realized.   
Finally, as the Director-General had stated fo r the donors part, both developed and emerging G20 
leaders had committed in Seoul the previous year  to maintain Aid for Trade resources at 2006/08 
levels.  Japan would continue to support the Aid-for-Trade initiative through its commitment. 
29. The representative of the European Union sai d the Director-General's report was highly 
appreciated, especially the five orientations which reflected to a great extent the EU's views and 
formed an excellent basis for the future work progr amme on Aid for Trade.  His delegation wished to 
make a few comments, in a preliminary manner, on the way forward, based on lessons emerging from 
the Third Global Review, under the five headings th e Director-General had just presented.  Regarding 
aid effectiveness, the EU was particularly pleased to see that monitoring and evaluation of Aid for 
Trade was starting to take a more prominent place.   One was seeing an increasing need to show, both 
to those directly involved but also to the general pub lic, i.e. the tax payers, that trade was an engine 
for growth and that this growth translated in to poverty reduction and welfare for the poorest.  
Evolving methodologies, impact assessment and effec tive indicators were tools that should be further 
improved in this process.  There was also a need to  accelerate the use of "best practices" in future 
work.  Many participants had mentioned regional in tegration as a condition for further growth.  The 
EU had long and deep experience of regional integrat ion and could not but agree that this was an area 
where developed countries and particular LDCs ha d to develop forward-looking strategies.  Trade 
often started with one's neighbours and then expand ed from there.  The EU was in favour of local, 
sub-regional, regional and intra-regiona l trade, but in this regard there might be a need for sequencing. 
30. On engaging the private sector, Public Private Pa rtnerships, FDI investment and trade finance 
were recognised as other areas of vital importance. These factors often fed on each other – one would 
not develop without the other – and the EU theref ore supported all initiatives that could create a more 
conducive environment in developing countries to attr act foreign industrial partners.  However, for 
that to happen, countries had to consider both le gal reform and reform of competition laws.  On 
mainstreaming, the EU was encouraged by the nu mber of countries who had said they were drafting 
new development strategies with trade strategy and Aid for Trade as an integral part, and that they 
were working on this at both national and, in some  cases, regional levels.  There had been several 
testimonies from development partners on how Aid for Trade had increased trade and GDP, and in turn alleviated poverty and provided infrastructure su ch as regional trade corridors.  In all this, there 
was an obviously important South-South dimension.   However, the picture was still mixed, with 
persistent poverty in some countries and in some regions  within countries.  It was particularly for this 
reason that Members needed to keep improving what they were doing. WT/GC/M/132 
Page 10  
 
  31. Regarding resources, as the EU had already said,  it remained fully committed to the Aid for 
Trade strategy.  The EU, as the world's largest pr ovider of Aid for Trade, had reached in 2009 an 
all-time high of approximately €10.5 billion and had made a commitment on its future spending on 
Aid for Trade.  It also backed this up with, for example, fully implemented DFQF access to the entire 
EU market.  In conclusion, there seemed to be little  doubt about the need for Aid for Trade and about 
the fact that it was actually making a difference to the welfare of people in the developing world. 
However, better results were needed, and Memb ers had to keep focusing on results, encourage 
South-South trade, look at the long-terms perspect ive, see reform and complementary policies in the 
partner countries, and ensure a broader stakeholder involvement. 
32. The representative of Turkey thanked the Direct or-General for his concise report on the Third 
Global Review.  The review proved the benefits of the programme for many LDCs and developing-
country Members.  Turkey acclaimed the Aid for Trade programme as one of the most effective 
support programmes.  It was also a significant success story of the WTO.  The Review had provided Members with an excellent opportunity to examine thoroughly the past and current implementation of 
the Aid for Trade programme as well as the possible ways to improve the programme's effectiveness.  
He again thanked all who had contributed to 2011 review. 
33. The representative of Honduras thanked also the agencies and banks for their support in the 
difficult times his country was facing, as well as th e donor countries and those that were promoting 
South-South aid.  The Third Global Review had prom pted his delegation to ask itself a few questions, 
and accordingly, to make some observations from th e WTO standpoint.  As had been heard during the 
Review, the traditional notion of Aid for Trade was still being applied in all areas, though not 
specifically in keeping with the new concept of Aid for Trade in the WTO.  Therefore, Members 
should attempt to define the new concept of Aid fo r Trade under the mandate of the Doha Declaration 
and to determine how it fitted into  the current negotiations.  They needed an interpretation of the 
current discussions in the WTO on what should and should not be considered as Aid for Trade within the multilateral trading framework.  He asked whethe r the treatment given to a country within the 
WTO as a candidate for Aid for Trade was subjec t to fewer conditionalities as far as the agencies 
were concerned.  Honduras was of the view that th ese questions could be taken up during the Fourth 
Global Review. 
34. The representative of the United States said his delegation appreciated the Secretariat's 
organization of Third Global Review, which had been helpful in identifying the salient issues at the 
forefront of trade-related assistance and the cha llenges and priorities on which the Aid for Trade 
community should focus going forward.  The US re mained strongly committed to the success of the 
Aid for Trade initiative as an importa nt complement to trade liberalization.  Its commitment was 
evident in the over $11 billion in Aid for Trade that it had provided since 2001.  The focus on 
measuring results of Aid for Trade was useful for a number of reasons.  First, now that Members were five years into the initiative, the time was right to begin assessing what Aid for Trade had 
accomplished and how the delivery of trade-related assi stance could be refined.  Second, it was in all 
Members' shared interest to ensure that they made  the most effective use of every dollar available for 
trade-related assistance.  Third, it provided valuab le input into discussions currently ongoing in the 
broader global development community concerning aid effectiveness.  As his delegation had said 
during this Global Review, the US was heavily focu sed on monitoring and evaluation, having released 
in 2010 an extensive evaluation of US trade-rela ted assistance.  With the Third Global Review 
completed, it looked forward to consultations early in the fall on the content of an Aid for Trade 
roadmap to take Members to the next global revi ew.  The US would participate actively in the 
development of that roadmap.  
35. The representative of Canada said the Third Globa l Review of Aid for Trade had been a very 
useful and timely opportunity to highlight the results to date emerging from the Aid for Trade 
initiative.  This success had been  due to the excellent work of the Director-General and the  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Secretariat, as well as the positive attitude of all par ticipants.  Canada was encouraged to see that there 
was general agreement on the important role Aid fo r Trade was playing to assist developing countries 
become trade-ready, as well as on the importance of improving Members' overall efforts to demonstrate concrete results to promote trade, economic growth and pove rty reduction.  Canada 
looked forward to putting in place the next work  programme on Aid for Tr ade for the Committee on 
Trade and Development in the fall, taking into co nsideration the important work submitted in the 
review and its hope that Members might continue  to discuss lessons learned and best practices 
resulting from this work as part of the CTD work programme. 
36. The representative of Zimbabwe said his delega tion had a question regarding the statistics 
published in the booklet that was part of the package for Aid for Trade.  There were no statistics for 
Zimbabwe, and his delegation wished to know what the lack of these figures meant. 
37. The General Council took note of the report by the Director-General and of the statements. 
4. Work Programme on E-commerce 
(a) Effective participation of developing countries in electronic commerce as a means to combat 
poverty – Communication from Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua (WT/GC/W/635 – G/C/W/650 
– WT/COMTD/W/179) 
38. The Chairman drew attention to the communi cation from Cuba, Ecuador  and Nicaragua in 
document WT/GC/132 requesting that this item be placed  on the agenda.  He draw attention also to 
the communication from these delegations in document WT/GC/W/635 - G/C/W/650 - WT/COMTD/W/179. 
39. The representative of Cuba said that on 14 July, the Secretariat had circulated the document 
entitled "Effective Participation of Developing Co untries in Electronic Commerce as a Means to 
Combat Poverty", which was co-sponsored by  Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia.  The 
communication fell within the framework of the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and 
followed up on the Decision (WT/L/782) adopted at th e Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference.  It was 
made of six sections and an annexed draft Mini sterial Decision, and it had a strong development 
focus.  The proposal contained abundant data refl ecting how, despite the mer its of information and 
communication technologies and the growth of diff erent ways of doing business electronically, the 
use made of such advantages had been asymmetrical. 
40. The expansion of the digital divide between developed and developing  countries limited the 
production and circulation of knowledge, accentuated economic backwardness and dangerously 
intensified misunderstanding between  peoples.  While the Internet and e-commerce produced benefits 
that many countries already perceived, the fact of  not having access to that environment was an issue 
that had to be addressed urgently in the WTO.  Hence the interest of Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and 
Bolivia in discussing this issue and proposing actions to be taken in order to resolve the difficulties 
faced by many developing countries. 
41. For example, due to the absurd economic, trad e and financial blockade, Cuba was denied 
access to information technologies th at were essential for the adva ncement of e-commerce.  These 
were restrictions that the United States unjustly imposed on her country, but that also had a major 
impact on other nations that had gone along with the United States policy against Cuba.  The United 
States, using its dominance in this sector, forbade Cuba access to equipment technologies (hardware) and applications (software).  It also prevente d Cuba from connecting to the international undersea 
fibre-optic cables that skirted it, forcing it to co nnect internationally via satellite, which was more 
expensive and less effective. WT/GC/M/132 
Page 12  
 
  42. The Cuban software industry had been hamstr ung by the restrictions imposed by companies 
in various countries which adhered faithfully to the provisions of the blockade, denying Cuba the use 
of United States' software components and tools in the development of new programmes, even in the 
case of open-access software (whether or not free of charge) covered by the General Public License (GNU-GPL).  This ran counter to the will of its authors, as expressed in their acceptance of an 
open-access licence for the use, modification and distribution of the software.  Many companies had 
established rules for Cuba which denied access to their websites or the services they offered when 
they found that the site was being accessed from an  Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to the 
national domain .cu.  In this case, extraterritoriality was a pplied through the restrictions imposed by 
sites published in other countries. 
43. Cuba had also been limited in its access to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial 
Telecommunication (SWIFT) network.  This networ k, headquartered in Belgium, provided liaison 
services, interface applications and secure and standardized messaging services in the financial sector.  The previous year, the Central Bank of Cu ba had been notified by SWIFT that, as from 
31 March 2012, it would be mandato rily required to use a certain type of software to access the 
network.  That software was not available to Cuba, because it contained technologies and components 
that were subject to restrictions under the United States' blockade. 
44. Another example of the framework of hostile me asures against her country that had to be 
mentioned was that Cubana Airlines was currently lim ited in its ability to sell tickets over the Internet.  
In 2009 this activity had been abruptly halted becau se a European bank that had received the proceeds 
of online sales had been notified by Visa that the u se of credit cards issued in the United States to 
clients around the world to buy tickets on Cubana Ai rlines had to cease because of the US measures 
against Cuba.  This had affected the Cuban air line's competitiveness, leaving the online buyers' 
market without service.  These buyers had gone on to transact their purchases with other airlines 
which did offer this service.  All of these prohibitions affected the growth of e-commerce in a developing-country Member of the WTO, despite the political will of the Cuban Government to 
advance more rapidly in this sector. 
45. The representative of Ecuador said that an UNCTAD report submitted in October 2010 had 
emphasized that poverty had a dimension related to lack of access to in formation.  In the past decade 
the scope for Information and Communication T echnologies (ICTs) to affect development and 
poverty had expanded in several respects.  The re port had highlighted the importance of exploring 
every opportunity to boost the development impact of this state of affairs. 
46. With regard to electronic commerce, Ecuador c onsidered that the opportunities created by this 
new trade instrument had not had a major impact on small and medium-sized producers in low- and 
middle-income developing countries.  On that b asis, it was of the view that electronic commerce 
could become a tool for poverty reduction.  From Ec uador's point of view, the WTO had a role to play 
in attaining that objective and that was why, in the proposal, the possibility of implementing a number 
of measures within the Organization had been raised, including in particular:  the adoption of a 
decision at the forthcoming Ministerial Conference to facilitate access, on non-discriminatory terms, to all information and telecommunication technolo gies;  the adoption of measures to encourage 
providers of international Internet  connections to agree to commercial arrangements enabling them to 
establish direct international Internet connecti ons;  the setting up of a working group on the 
relationship between electronic commerce and developm ent, open to the participation of all Members, 
under the auspices of the Committee on Trade and Deve lopment;  and the incorporation of electronic 
commerce into the Aid-for-Trade initiative and the Tr ade-Related Technical Assistance organized by 
the WTO. 
47. The co-sponsors were confident that this pr oposal lay the foundations for better use of 
electronic commerce as a means of poverty reduction in their countries and hoped it would be viewed  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 13 
 
 
  positively by Members with a view to agreeing a jo int position as a specific outcome of the mandate 
conferred by Ministers at the Seventh Session of the WTO Ministerial Conference. 
48. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that, in compliance with the 
Ministerial Decision adopted on 11 December 2009, her delegation had been working alongside the 
delegations of Cuba, Ecuador a nd Nicaragua to draw up a proposal for a work programme on 
e-commerce within the WTO.  The outcome of that work was the document entitled "Effective 
participation of developing countries in electroni c commerce as a means to combat poverty" which 
Bolivia was pleased to co-sponsor.  The proposal was consistent with the interests and guidelines of 
Bolivia's National Development Plan as it aimed to  promote access, especially on non-discriminatory 
terms, to information and communication technolo gies for the growth of electronic commerce in 
Member countries. 
49. The National Development Plan of the Plurina tional State of Bolivia included the introduction 
of information and communication technologies in the field of connectivity, infrastructure for 
accessing, generating, transmitting and receiving inform ation, and the developm ent of regulations in 
that regard.  In addition, the Bolivian Govern ment was making efforts to strengthen the national 
science and technology sector and to expand its coverage  with a view to achieving social application 
of knowledge in an inclusive, reciprocal and n on-discriminatory framework, as means of combating 
poverty. 
50. Finally, her country placed particular impor tance on the setting up of a working group, open 
to the participation of all Members, on th e relationship between electronic commerce and 
development;  this would permit an analysis of th e most effective and efficient means of promoting 
achievement of objectives relating to training, an d the use and facilitation of access to electronic 
commerce by micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as the adoption of measures to promote monitoring of work done in this field.  To that end, Bolivia had co-sponsored this proposal 
and encouraged all Members to support it. 
51. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela thanked the previous speakers for 
their statements and supported what they had said.  The proposal contained very positive elements, as 
those speakers had highlighted.  Venezuela hoped it would be given positive c onsideration by others 
so that a decision could be adopted on the basis of  consensus in the course of the Eighth Ministerial 
Conference. 
52. The representative of Nicaragua said that it was no secret that Nicaragua stood with Cuba in 
its struggle to obtain fairer and non-discriminatory  conditions for its development and to enjoy the 
benefits to which it was entitled as a Member of the WTO and of the multilateral trading system.  
While the situation confronting Cuba was extreme,  many developing countries, particularly low-
income and least-developed countries, faced constrai nts in benefiting from the potential that electronic 
commerce offered.  The fact that most companies in  these countries were micro, small and, to a lesser 
extent, medium-sized enterprises contributed to th is.  Nicaragua was pleased to co-sponsor this 
proposal, which addressed an issue of particular complexity.  Among the issues involved in 
e-commerce were those related to consumer protec tion, protection of intellectual property rights, 
computer crime and taxes and customs, to name but a few. 
53. She wished to refer to two specific elements of  the proposal that Cuba had presented:  first, 
the establishment of a working group on the rela tionship between e-commerce and development, 
under the auspices of the Committee on Trade and De velopment;  and second, the incorporation of 
e-commerce into the Aid-for-Trade Initiative and trade -related assistance.  To this end, the text of a 
Ministerial decision was proposed for adoption at th e next Ministerial Conference, if consensus was 
achieved and Nicaragua hoped that it would be.  Her delegation invited Members to consider the WT/GC/M/132 
Page 14  
 
  proposal, which it hoped to discuss extensively on return from the summer re cess in the context of 
preparations for the Eighth Ministerial Conference. 
54. The representative of Japan said his delegati on welcomed the communication not only from 
the four co-sponsors, but also the submission by the EU and the United States in the Council for Trade 
in Services, which would provide useful gro und for discussion under the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce.  Since both documents had been circulated only recently, Japan was still 
examining them.  However, as a preliminary comme nt, Japan considered that Members had to be 
careful about creating new working bodies as well  as avoiding duplication with the work already 
undertaken at other international organizations lik e the ITU.  After reviewing these proposals, Japan 
wished to discuss them in deta il in the relevant Committees. 
55. The representative of Argentina thanked the co -sponsors for their proposal, which was being 
studied in his capital.  Argentina hoped to be able  to participate actively in discussions following the 
summer break, and again thanked the co-sponsors for their initiative. 
56. The representative of Switzerland said his delega tion fully endorsed th e statement by Japan. 
57. The representative of the European Union said hi s delegation supported the reinvigoration of 
the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce.  The EU therefore welcomed the recent submissions 
by several Members and looked forward to par ticipating in the forthcoming discussion on those 
issues.  With regard to the recent submission by Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua, the EU recognized and 
agreed with the co-sponsors on the importance of  the Information and Communication Technology 
(ICT) services and networks for development.  The recently submitted paper raised a number of 
questions and issues that Members would have  to address carefully.  Beyond the proposed new 
institutional set up and the exchanges of experiences a nd best practises, the EU wished to have a more 
detailed discussion with the proponents on their proposed actions vis-à-vis  access to ICT networks 
and connectivity.  Further clarification was needed on the exact scope and boundaries of the 
co-sponsors' objectives and expectations, given the very  wide formulation used in their paper.  The 
EU also wished to underline that, in cooperatio n with the United States, it had also made a 
contribution to the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, i.e. a series of ICT services trade-
related principles that would enhance the deve lopment of electronic commerce, contained in 
document S/C/W/338.  The EU looked forward to discussing those principles with Members at the 
September meeting of the Council for Trade in Services. 
58. The representative of the United States tha nked DDG Singh for the report he would make on 
the progress of work in the Work Programme on Elect ronic Commerce.  While it had taken some time 
for Members to start to reinvigorate the work under the Work Programme, his delegation supported 
Members' efforts to exchange views and ideas on th ese issues.  The United States had been active in 
this area.  As others had mentioned, the Un ited States, along with the EU, had put forward a 
submission under the Work Programme in the Counc il for Trade in Services, that raised many 
pertinent issues for the advancement of e-commerce in the form of principles for ICT networks and 
services.  It looked forward to a detailed discussion on that submission at the September meeting of 
the Council for Trade in Services.  Regarding the proposal by Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua, the US 
noted that it had been recently introduced and brie fly discussed on 14 July at an informal consultation 
on e-commerce held by DDG Singh.  The US and othe r Members were still reviewing it and trying to 
understand it further.  His delegati on felt it would be premature to discuss the details of this proposal 
at the present meeting, and suggested that the technical experts under the E-Commerce Work 
Programme further review the proposal.  For exam ple, a key component for the development of e-
commerce was the expansion of trade in services.  In particular, it had been widely demonstrated that an open and competitive ICT services market brought  important development gains to a country.  
However, the paper appeared to be silent on this  issue.  Once again, the US looked forward to 
working through the issues of interest to Members in  e-commerce in a practical and useful way, and  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 15 
 
 
  would continue to work constructively with DDG Si ngh and other Members to discuss relevant issues 
in the e-commerce sphere.  This would help advance the Ministers’ mandate from the last Ministerial Conference to intensively reinvigorate work on electronic commerce. 
59. The representative of Brazil said that like ot her delegations, Brazil thanked Cuba, Ecuador 
and Nicaragua for their communication, which his au thorities were still reviewing.  Brazil intended to 
tackle this issue in a constructive fashion. 
60. The representative of Cuba thanked all tho se delegations who had made preliminary 
comments on the submission, which had only recently  been circulated and for which the English 
translation had been circulated only a few days ea rlier.  Cuba looked forward to continuing this 
discussion and to having an in-depth consideration of  the proposal.  Some interesting points had been 
raised and the experts in this area would be very pleased to discuss them further. 
61. The representative of Chinese Taipei said his dele gation wished to participate in any further 
discussion of the submission by Cuba, Ecua dor and Nicaragua, and of future work. 
62. The General Council took note of the statements. 
(b) Review of progress (S/C/35) 
63. The Chairman recalled that at their Seventh Session in Geneva in December 2009, Ministers 
had adopted a Decision on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce (WT/L/782).  In this 
Decision, Ministers had called, inter alia , for intensive reinvigoration of work under the Work 
Programme, and had instructed the General Council  to hold periodic reviews of the progress on the 
Work Programme in preparation for the next Minist erial Conference.  The Council had last reviewed 
progress in this area in December 2010.  He inv ited DDG Singh, who on his behalf, and that of his 
predecessors, had been dealing with the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce since 2005, to 
report on work in this area. 
64. Deputy Director-General Singh  said that since May of 2011, a number of initiatives under the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce had been unde rtaken.  As the report by the Chairman of 
the Council for Trade in Services in document S/C/ 35 indicated, in response to a request at that 
Council's meeting on 2 May, the Secretariat had pr oduced a compilation of elements related to the 
electronic supply of services drawn from 23 Secretariat Background Notes issued on a number of sectors and modes of supply, as well as on statistics on trade flows in services.  This compilation, contained in document JOB/SERV/78 of 17 June 2011,  had been taken up at the 24 June meeting of 
the Services Council and would be discussed further at its meeting in September.  Also in the context 
of the Services Council, on 13 July 2011 the Euro pean Union and the United States had made a joint 
proposal, in document S/C/W/338, on trade-related pr inciples to support the expansion of information 
and communication technology (ICT) networks a nd services and to enhance the development of 
e-commerce, which would be taken up at the Servi ces Council's next meeting.  On 13 July 2011, the 
delegations of Cuba, Ecua dor and Nicaragua had made a joint s ubmission, which had later been co-
sponsored also by Bolivia, to the General Council,  the Council for Trade in Goods and the Committee 
on Trade and Development, in triple-s ymbol document WT/GC/W/635, G/C/W/650, 
WT/COMTD/W/179, on the Effective Participation of Developing Countries in Electronic Commerce 
as a Means to Combat Poverty, which also contained a proposal for a decision at the upcoming Eighth Ministerial Conference.  The co-sponsors had re quested that the formal working document be 
included in the agendas of these three WTO bodies.  The General Council has just discussed this 
communication.  At the 24 May meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, the United States had 
requested that e-commerce be included on the agenda of  that Council's next meeting.  On 14 July, on 
behalf of the General Council Chair,  he had held an informal cons ultation open to all Members with 
the specific purpose of considering the periodic review  Members were currently carrying out.  At that WT/GC/M/132 
Page 16  
 
  meeting, delegations who had made  proposals had briefly introduced them, and there had been overall 
agreement that the discussion and documents would pr ovide a good basis to take this work forward.  
This recent activity showed that delegations had clearly gotten the ball rolling again on e-commerce in 
a substantive way, and this momentum should c ontinue between the present and the December 
General Council, at which time Members would c onsider possible recommendations to Ministers at 
MC8. 
65. The representative of Australia thanked DDG Singh for his report and said his delegation 
supported the continued reinvigora tion and intensification of the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce.  Thus, the signs of momentum that DDG Singh had pointed to were welcome.  As part of 
this process, Members needed to further consider in ternational laws for electronic trading, including 
the application of established principles in inte rnational trade to business conducted by electronic 
transmission.  Electronic commerce spanned most areas of international trade, which was why the 
Work Programme mandated work in a number of WTO bodies such as the Goods Council, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council and the CTD.  It was important for Members to keep discussing 
different aspects of e-commerce within the vari ous WTO bodies, especially as the technologies on 
which e-commerce was built were continually evolving.   Australia welcomed all of the proposals that 
had been made on e-commerce, including the recen t proposal from Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua, and 
looked forward to the discussion of all proposals in the relevant bodies as the first step of further work. 
66. The representative of Switzerland said his delega tion was very happy to see the reinvigoration 
of the work on e-commerce and welcomed the pr oposals which had been made recently,  Switzerland 
wished to highlight one aspect of e-commerce in which it was highly interested, which was the role 
and participation of small- and medium-sized enterprises in the area of e-commerce. 
67. The General Council took note of the statement by DDG Singh and the other statements. 
5. Eighth Session of the Ministerial Conference – Statement by the Chairman 
68. The Chairman said6 that as he had announced at the May meeting of the General Council, he 
had continued the consultations started by his predecessor on the Eighth Session of the Ministerial 
Conference, which would take place on 15-17 Dece mber.  His consultations had been aimed at 
hearing Members' views about substance and organiza tion of MC8, including work to take place after 
the Conference.  In other words, this initial phase ha d been about defining the "big picture".  Members 
clearly needed to first develop a common view as to what they wanted this Conference to do and how 
it should do it.  Only then could they move on to  settle other more detailed issues.  The overall 
objective remained as Members had defined it at the outset – to produce a successful Ministerial 
Conference;  one which, despite the current problem s in the Round, would help to reinforce the value 
of the WTO system for all its members. 
69. Since May, he had met with a very wide range  of Members in three rounds of consultations, 
which, in keeping with usual practice, had in cluded Group Coordinators , individual delegations, 
groups of delegations and the Chairs of the Council' s subsidiary bodies.  As ever, his door had also 
remained open for any other delegation wishing to meet  him.  He wished to begin his overview of the 
consultations by outlining the points on which he  had seen a high degree of convergence emerging. 
70. There had been a general sense that MC8 would ha ve to be a different event from MC7.  This 
was largely because more was at st ake – even, according to some, th e credibility of the organization 
itself.  More focus should be placed on the system ic and institutional issues.  MC8 should strengthen 
the system as a whole.  Most delegations had also  stressed that MC8 should send the message that the 
                                                      
6 The statement was subsequently ci rculated in document WT/GC/133.  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 17 
 
 
  WTO was not synonymous with the DDA:  the WTO was more than the Round.  At the same time, 
there had been a general sense that MC8 could not , and should not, avoid addressing the DDA.  It had 
been noted that possible deliverables under the D oha mandate were being pursued through the TNC 
process chaired by the Director-General.  A general view had also been expressed that Development 
issues should remain central at MC8, and LDC issues in particular. 
71. Turning to the organizing principles for MC8, he said there had been unanimous support for 
reaffirming two principles that had helped make the previous Ministerial run smoothly.  First, the FIT 
principle (Full participation, Inclusiveness and Transp arency), to be applied both in the preparations 
for the Ministerial and at the Conference itself.  Secondly, the "gentleman's agreement" as agreed for 
MC7.  This meant that any Member pursuing an i ssue for decision, but not achieving consensus on it 
6 weeks before the Ministerial, which meant 2 N ovember, would not insist on putting the item on the 
Conference Agenda.  Delegations had also stressed the need to avoid what  they had termed the 
"Christmas tree syndrome".  Clearly, all wanted the Conference to be a success, and for this to happen 
the Agenda put before Ministers had to be realis tic in terms of the number of issues it contained, 
especially in the light of the short time available to  them at MC8.  Members had recognized that three 
issues had to be taken up at MC8 under existing manda tes:  the moratorium on e-commerce duties;  
the moratorium on TRIPS non-violation compla ints; and the overview of WTO activities. 
72. In terms of the structure of MC8, a number of delegations had stressed that the discussions 
should be structured and focused.  There had been  general acceptance of a proposal to focus the 
structure of the Conference and its preparation on two main themes:  WTO work up until December 
2011;  and WTO work after December 2011 and perh aps up to the next MC in 2013.  To help 
organize the work, he had asked delegations to cons ider when they put forw ard issues which of these 
headings they could fall under.  In practical te rms this meant thinking whether an issue could 
realistically be considered ripe for action in De cember, or whether it was something that might be 
flagged as possibly forming part of a future WTO work programme.  Members would need to develop 
greater clarity on this point as they moved ahead. 
73. On the substantive agenda of MC8, many ideas had been floated in his consultations and he 
did not intend to list all of them.  But to give an idea, the suggestions he had heard under the first 
heading ranged from a focus on Development, incl uding Aid for Trade and issues relating to LDCs 
and SVEs, to improving Accession processes.  Othe r suggestions included strengthening the TPRM 
and the monitoring mechanism, and broadening wo rk on RTAs.  For the future work programme 
under the second heading, suggestions included addr essing systemic aspects of WTO's work and a 
number of new, or 21st century, issues as they had been called.  Examples of issues raised in this 
regard included trade and currency exchange  rates, climate change, and food security. 
74. Most of the issues raised so far in his consu ltations had a home in the existing structures and 
processes of the WTO.  In fact many of the issues were already part of the on-going work in these 
areas.  One did not need to, and he did not inte nd to, duplicate these structures and processes.  Instead 
the aim should be to use them to the maximum, so that issues of interest could be presented to 
Ministers through the reports WTO bodies would make  to them via the General Council.  These 
reports could of course include recommendations for action where any could be agreed.  This 
approach appeared to be well understood by the proponents. 
75. In this regard, he was maintaining contact with  the Chairs of the regular WTO bodies to help 
reinforce the processes as necessary, and he hoped all delegations  would also make full use of the 
existing machinery.  The need to revitalize the work of regular WTO bodies, including notification 
and compliance, had been a common theme in the cons ultations.  Members could take a useful step in 
that direction right now by giving them their prope r place in the preparation of the Ministerial agenda. WT/GC/M/132 
Page 18  
 
  76. The focus of his recent consulta tions had been to encourage delegations to move from the 
general to the specific.  He had urged anyone advoca ting a point for Ministerial attention to develop it 
in a concrete and operational way.  This was essentia l since, in line with the gentleman's agreement, 
the onus was on proponents to build consensus around their proposals and to do so before the six-week deadline for the Conference Agenda. 
77. There had been a good deal of commonality in the issues identified in his consultations.  This 
was already a positive sign.  Of course approaches to these issues varied cons iderably at present.  
Working towards the necessary convergence on substa nce and process was a challenge in front of 
everyone for the autumn, as was working toward a sh ared view of the WTO's future work programme.  
In the light of this, he wished to share some conc lusions that he had drawn from his consultations over 
these past weeks.  Firstly, Members should remind th emselves that they had all rejected a "Christmas 
tree" approach to the Ministerial.  The purpose of his recent consultations had been to ensure that 
where any issues did go forward to Ministers, in lin e with the agreed procedure, these were properly 
formulated and prepared.  Delegations should keep in mind that there were limits to what Ministers 
could do in three days, especially since everyone w as pledged to respect the FIT principle.  Secondly, 
Members needed clarity on the scope of the issu es which would go to MC8.  He hoped that those 
delegations who had raised an issue in his consulta tions so far would now deve lop it in a concrete and 
operational way and test it with colleagues.  One c ould not afford to create misleading ambitions for 
what the Ministerial could deliver.  Lastly, he wished to stress the time factor.  After the summer break delegations would have less than 14 weeks until the Ministerial, and some 7 weeks until the 
agenda closed.  This was a very short timeframe in  which to finalize the substantive content of the 
conference and settle remaining procedural issues.  It would be made even tighter by the need to 
factor in the outcome of the on-going consulta tions on the DDA which the Director-General was 
undertaking. 
78. Regarding the issue of the outcome document of MC8, which had been raised in his 
consultations by some delegations, this was clearly a key element of the preparatory process, and 
Members would have to address it more specifically wh en they returned in September.  While some 
delegations had argued in favour of developing an agreed ministerial communiqué or even 
declaration, others had felt that a Chairman's statement along the lines of the 2009 model might be 
preferable.  Of course, the form it took would depend to a great extent on the nature of the substantive 
issues delegations wished to transmit to Ministers.  Whatever the precise form of the product, this was 
presumably where issues relating to the future wo rk programme would be addressed, so it would be 
an important consideration in  his further consultations. 
79. The first phase of the preparatory work, wh ich could be described as one of issue 
identification, was now coming to an end.  When they came back in September, delegations would 
need to shift to working through the appropriate pro cesses to see what was realistically achievable in a 
pragmatic and realistic spirit.  At the same time, he  would be shifting the main focus of his continuing 
consultations from immediate issues to the future work programme of the WTO, taking into account 
all that he had heard from delegations about long-te rm priorities for the organization.  His aim in 
doing so was to complete the "big picture" of the substantive agenda so that delegations could then 
settle the remaining organizational i ssues in good time.  In his further consultations in the autumn, he 
would, of course, continue to fully respect the pr inciples of transparency and inclusiveness.  His door 
would remain open for any delegation who wished to meet with him.  He looked forward to 
continuing to work closely with all de legations to finalize the preparations. 
80. Regarding administrative matters for MC8, th e Secretariat had already issued a first 
Information Circular, covering various logistical ma tters relating to the Conference.  The second and 
third Circulars were now being issued, coveri ng visas and hotel bookings, respectively.  These 
Circulars could be found in documents WT/MIN (11)/INF/1, 2 and 3, and he encouraged all  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 19 
 
 
  delegations to familiarize themselves with the info rmation they contained.  The Secretariat would 
issue further Information Circulars in due course. 
81. All delegations who spoke thanked the Chai rman for his very detailed statement. 
82. The representative of Brazil reiterated Brazi l's support for the Chairman's process of 
consultations on MC8 and expressed its appreciation fo r the efforts he had been undertaking in order 
to have a successful event in December.  Like ot her delegations, Brazil was of the view that the 
Ministerial Conference had to convey a positive messag e to the world, effectively demonstrating that 
the organization's role in international trade and global governance was not limited to the negotiations 
of the Doha Round.  There were a number of rele vant issues that could and should be dealt with 
during the Conference, and Brazil thanked other de legations for raising them.  Brazil was open to 
consider any approach that allowed for a meaningful  and efficient Ministerial Conference.  However, 
despite the fact that Brazil was s till working to secure LDC deliverables by MC8, it now realized that 
an early DDA harvest with LDC-plus elements was not doable by next December. Therefore, Brazil had highlighted at the TNC meeting the previous da y – and wished to reiterate now – that Members 
had to, with a strong sense of urgency, do the fo llowing:  (i) consider how to address relevant 
non-DDA issues that already were – or could become – part of the regular work and that could be 
addressed at MC8;  and (ii) discuss how they in tended to proceed in the period between MC8 and 
MC9, both for regular WTO work and for the DDA Single Undertaking.  Members now had much better clarity about what could or could not be  achieved in terms of negotiated outcomes by 
December, and this should help to advance the Ch airman's consultations, especially within the two 
pillars just mentioned. 
83. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group,  said the LDCs appreciated 
the consultative process the Chairman had initiate d and assured him of their support in taking the 
process forward.  The current situation of the DDA negotiations made it imperative to have some substantive development-oriented outcome dur ing MC8.  The Group maintained that the 
LDC-specific deliverables that enjoyed broad conve rgence among Members had to remain at the core 
of the outcomes at MC8.  The LDC Group wished to see that a solid foundation was laid to make any 
MC8 outcome meaningful, durable and relevant.  This would help restore confidence in the 
rules-based multilateral trading system in the face of  waning public perception about its potential to 
deliver on development.  MC8 would be the right ti me to reverse that trend and prove to the world 
that the WTO was able to perform and deliver on every aspect of its mandate and competence.  It 
would also be an opportune time to reaffirm Memb ers' shared commitment to the early conclusion of 
the DDA.  The Chairman's report hinted at a number of issues, including those that the 
developing-country Members were working on.  Th e LDC Group attached great importance to many 
of these issues.  While it endorsed the Chair's sugg estion to avoid a "Christmas tree" approach, it 
wished to underline some of its preferences for po ssible inclusion in the MC8 agenda.  These included 
simplification and rationalizing the accession process, particularly for LDCs; the food-security 
challenges facing NFIDCs; and extension of certain LDC-specific waivers which were due to expire 
in a few years.  There were also issues of cr ucial importance like the Monitoring Mechanism and 
putting into effect Agreement-specific proposals ag reed in Cancun.  The Group looked forward to 
engaging on these issues in further detail.  It hope d that Members would sincerely and constructively 
engage in the process with a view to accomplishing the work that was to be achieved by December 
2011 and not unnecessarily defer them to a future work programme post-MC8. 
84. The representative of the European Union thanke d the Chairman for his constructive role in 
the preparation of MC8 and for the guidance for next steps provided in his report.  MC8 would be an 
important interface between the ne gotiating pillar, the "middle pillar" and regular WTO work, and 
would contain important DDA and non-DDA issues.  Of  course, Doha was by far the most important 
single item Members would need to discuss in December, and the EU had already given its current 
views on this under agenda item 1 of the present mee ting and at the TNC meeting the previous day.  WT/GC/M/132 
Page 20  
 
  The EU attached high importance to some of th ese non-DDA issues and wished to see a substantive 
outcome on some of these in December.  On the prac tical way forward, the EU agreed that work on 
these topics would have to start with a sense of urgency in September, and that Members should 
quickly move to identify what could become a deli verable without insisting too long on issues that 
were unlikely to gather sufficient support.  Member s needed to concentrate their efforts on what could 
effectively be delivered.  The EU could also go along with the suggested two-fold  structure: (a) topics 
up for a decision in December;  and, (b) issues on wh ich Ministers would give indications for further 
work or provide a work-programme – if appropr iate, with the first real deliverables in 2012. 
85. The EU already had some ideas on items to  be addressed under both categories and was 
encouraged to hear that there was a good level of "communality" on this among Members.  He wished 
to briefly flag five of them.  First, the EU hoped to see Ministers deciding in December on some 
substantive improvement to the Trade Policy Revi ew Mechanism, and thanked Amb. Matus for the 
good work done so far on this.  Members needed to tu rn this already successful instrument into a more 
efficient one.  Some of the ideas the EU wished  to pursue were clearer recommendations to the 
reviewed Member, a streamlined process with more time for all Members to analyse the questions and 
replies, better access to the proceedings for the whol e membership and for the general public.  The EU 
believed that Ministers could decide in December to grant to the WTO a more detailed and formal 
mandate on the useful monitoring reports that it had delivered since the beginning of the crisis. It was 
a valuable input to the fight against protectionism.  In this regard, it would al so like to thank the WTO 
Secretariat for its increased focus on notifications , both in monitoring Members' performance in 
notifying and on how to make the notification oblig ations more efficient and less burdensome.  The 
EU believed that providing information on its trad e policy is a fundamental obligation of all WTO 
Members, and notably for those who accounted for large shares of global trade. 
86. Another pressing topic was the relation between  RTAs and the multilateral trading system, 
and here the EU believed a deliverable was need ed for December – the permanent adoption of the 
transparency mechanism.  To do so, Members woul d need to overcome some of the debates on how 
this would affect the coverage of the Enabling Cl ause.  His delegation had heard that Members would 
like to discuss accessions, and notably LDCs accessi ons.  The EU was open to engage constructively 
in this debate.  The WTO had a vocation to be a global institution and Members should therefore work 
to have the broadest membership possible.  Ho wever, the possibility of concluding any accession 
negotiation depended mainly on the efforts of eac h applicant country to undergo the necessary 
internal reforms.  Finally, Ministers would have to look into "21
st century issues" which were not 
covered by the DDA but which Members sensed that  the WTO should start addressing even before 
concluding the Round.  
87. This was just a non-exhaustive list of ideas that the EU would shape in a more defined way in 
September and that it was looking forward to discussi ng with other Members.  Of course, the EU was 
just as keen to exchange views on other ideas that it had heard at the present meeting or which might 
emerge later.  As to the form, i. e. agreed declaration, chairman summary or something else, the EU 
was of the view that it was probably too soon to take  a position on this;  Members needed to wait until 
the substance of the MC8 agenda was clearer.  So me of the topics his delegation had flagged would 
surely require a ministerial decision.  For some others – for example the "21st century issues" – a 
chairman summary might be the right format.  Overa ll, the important thing was to make sure that the 
outcome of the Ministerial was carried by the en tire membership – Members needed a common view 
on where the WTO needed to head to in the future. 
88. The representative of the Dominican Repub lic, on behalf of the Informal Group of 
Developing Countries, commended the Chairman on what  had been a very involving and transparent 
process.  The Informal Group of Developing Countri es had heeded the Chairman's call for inputs and 
had engaged in discussions to assist him in his endeavour s.  It was for this reason that a meeting of the 
Group had been convened on 15 July.  He was pleased to report that this meeting turned out to be  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 21 
 
 
  quite successful in that there was excellent partic ipation and very interesting dialogue ensued on the 
issues of interest to the developing countries, in th e belief that development should be at the centre of 
MC8.  Developing countries concurred with the Direct or General's view that one was witnessing "the 
paralysis in the negotiating function of the WTO".   In light of this worrying situation, The Group 
believed that Members needed to take special care of those functions that we re operating more or less 
satisfactorily, namely, monitoring and surve illance, Dispute Settlement, Aid for Trade and 
Accessions. 
89. It was for this reason that the Group had been organizing a series of workshops and dialogues 
to discuss some of these topics and to reinfor ce its knowledge of the main instruments in the 
organization.  This process had al so resulted in the Group's 15 July meeting where it also focused on 
those issues.  During that meeting, the Group ha d discussed issues ranging from improving access for 
developing countries, and in particular the LDCs , to the Dispute Settlement Mechanism.  The Group 
had also heard with great interest a presentation by  Amb. Matus on the fourth review of the Trade 
Policy Review Mechanism.  It was the Group's view that in times of crisis and paralysis in the 
negotiations the surveillance and monitoring instru ments of the TPRB, as well as full and opportune 
access to the Dispute Settlement mechanism by all Members, were particularly important to prevent 
the spread of protectionist measures.  Additionall y, the delegation of Colombia had introduced the 
issue of improving transparency in accessions.  Acce ssion was an issue that ha d long been a concern 
of the Group and it had concluded that it wa s necessary to make the accession process more 
transparent and inclusive in order to prevent devel oping countries, and the LDCs in particular, facing 
commitment demands that were not compa tible with their level of development. 
90. The Group's discussions had also turned to other issues that concerned developing countries 
and that should be brought to the attention of Mini sters in order to provide further guidance to our 
work in Geneva.  Among these issues were:  creation of an Aid for Trade frame work for the SVEs so 
that SVEs could take full advantage of this impor tant initiative;  food security for net food-importing 
developing countries (NFIDCs) to tackle some of th e causes of food price inflation which was a grave 
problem that threatened social stability;  Annex C of the Draft Cancun Ministerial Declaration on 
S&D proposals, as developing countries were of the opinion that these measures that had already been 
agreed should be formally adopted;  transition periods for LDCs under Article 66 of the TRIPS 
Agreement to provide the LDCs with more time to build the necessary cap acity to implement these 
complex obligations;  and electronic commerce in order to help close the technology gap suffered by developing countries and help them better integrat e their small and medium enterprises into this 
increasingly important means of doing business.  The Cuban initiative presented at the present 
meeting under Agenda Item 4(a) was part of the di scussion of this issue.  The Group would continue 
to explore these issues and also look into what woul d be the most appropriate avenues to pursue them 
in a wider setting. 
91. The representative of Honduras asked that his delegation be included when various groups 
were convened in the Chairman's consultations a nd not automatically excluded.  For the minutes of 
this meeting, his delegation believed that there were some elements of implementation of the 
Agreements that should be included in order for Mini sters to consider how to proceed with them, as 
they were no longer relevant.  His delegation we lcomed the Chairman's deadline or "gentleman's 
agreement".  Honduras had no problem with it, howev er, he was obliged to put down a reservation, 
because he was not aware whether his country might have something important at the last minute to 
be discussed by Ministers.  His delegation appreciat ed the Chairman's report and the stages he had 
outlined, which it was hearing about for the first time.  It therefore took note.  Lastly, his delegation 
wished to express its readiness to support the Chai rman in striving to achieve the Members' common 
goal – a successful Eighth Ministerial Conference. 
92. The representative of China said that MC8 was taking place at a crucial time which might 
decide whether the WTO was still relevant and ho w relevant it was in global governance.  His WT/GC/M/132 
Page 22  
 
  delegation understood that the prep arations on Doha-related issues would be led by the TNC Chair 
and the Chairman's work would focus on non-Doha i ssues.  He wished to emphasize that MC8 had to 
move forward instead of backward on the Devel opment Agenda, and that WTO and DDA should be 
development-oriented.  "Stop and reboot" was not  an option.  Regarding non-Doha issues, his 
delegation took note that there was already quite a long list on the table.  His delegation would 
continue to engage cons tructively with other Members in the consultation process the Chairman was 
steering in order to finalize the programme as soon as possible. 
93. The representative of Japan said his delega tion basically supported the ideas and views 
presented by the Chairman for the preparation of MC 8.  It was of the view that Members should 
deliver a clear message that the regular work of  the WTO, including future work covering the 
21st century issues, was as important as the DDA  negotiations.  After the summer break, Members 
should elaborate ideas and focus on several impo rtant agenda items while avoiding creating a 
"Christmas Tree", as the Chairman had mentioned. 
94. The General Council took note of the Chairman 's statement and of the other statements. 
6. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administra tion – Report on meetings of June and 
July 2011 (WT/BFA/124 and WT/BFA/125) 
95. The Chairman drew attention to the repor ts of the Budget Committee in documents 
WT/BFA/124 and 125 and invited Mr Vaaranmaa (F inland), Chairman of the Committee, to introduce 
the reports. 
96. Mr Vaaranmaa (Finland), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration, said that at its meetings in June  and July 2011, the Budge t Committee had reviewed 
and, where appropriate, taken action on reports c overing several important areas, including the budget 
and financial situation, the building project, human resource management, the 2010 Financial 
Performance Report, external and internal audit,  Administrative Measures, the ITC and WTO security 
and safety.  As of the end of May, the budgetary and financial situation of the WTO Secretariat for 
regular and extra-budgetary funds had been stable .  While more than 60 per cent of the assessed 
amount of Members' contributions had been received,  receipts had been slightly lower, compared to 
the previous year. The funding situation of th e DDA Global Trust Fund had been the cause of some 
concern in the first several mont hs of 2011, due to the low rate of contributions.  However, the 
situation had slightly improved in recent weeks, w ith contributions from Norway, Sweden and Japan.  
The Committee had been informed of the progress made on the building project.   The construction 
work had progressed on the south courtyard conference centre and the atrium.  The Secretariat had 
also updated the Committee on the common facilities that  required furnishing and equipping as part of 
the building project.  The Committee had agreed that an amount of up to CHF 2.3 Million from the Members' Transition Operating Fund could be used  to finance the equipping and furnishing of the 
common areas, training facilities and archive rooms in the renovated CWR building.  The Secretariat 
had updated the Committee on the progress on human resource mana gement of the reallocation 
exercise of 24 posts, which was planned for the biennium 2010-2011.  The Secretariat had presented 
the 2010 Financial Performance Report  audited by the External Auditors. 
97. The Committee had taken note of the report and recommended that the General Council 
approve the transfers between budgetary sections as outlined in paragraphs 27 and 33 of document 
WT/BFA/W/236.  The Committee had further reco mmended that the General Council approve the 
audited accounts for 2010.  As provided by the Fi nancial Regulations, the Committee had reviewed 
the proposal by the Director-General on  the utilization of the 2010 Surplus Account  balance.  The 
Committee had recommended to the General Council that  the credit balance of the Surplus Account as 
at 31 December 2010 amounting to CHF 10,527,319 be transferred to the Members' Transition Operating Fund.  The Chair of the Working Group on Administrative Measures had updated the  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 23 
 
 
  Committee on the consultations engaged with Members and regional groupings on revising the 
Administrative Measures to be applied to Members with arrears in contributions.  The Secretariat had informed the Committee on the progress achieved in the past two years in reducing by more than half, 
the number of Members subject to Administrative Measu res.  The Secretariat had been asked to fully 
apply the Administrative Measures.  The Comm ittee had then received information on the  preliminary 
budget estimates to accommodate the ITC's programme  of activities during the biennium 2012-2013.  
It had reviewed and approved some adjustment s to the ITC budget approval process. The ITC had 
also provided information on the after-service hea lth insurance liability.  The Committee had then 
examined the second annual report of the Office of In ternal Audit.  This report provided an overview 
of the internal audit activities carried out in 2010.  Finally, the Committee had concluded by receiving 
information from the Secretariat on the secur ity and safety arrangements at the WTO. 
98. The Director-General wished to provide a brief update on the situation of Members subject to 
Administrative Measures and on the latest steps he had undertaken with the Secretariat in this respect.  
Under the Administrative Measures, a Member that had three or more years' arrears of contributions at year's end was designated as inactive.  These Me mbers were subject to Category IV Administrative 
Measures.  In just over two years, the numbe r of Members considered inactive under the 
Administrative Measures had gone down from 18 to seven, i.e. by 60 per cent.  In order to avoid remaining under Administrative Measures, nine Me mbers had agreed to payment plans.  The two 
most recent had been approved by the General Council in May 2011.  He recalled that the 
establishment of payment plans was not a definitiv e solution unless the Member concerned made sure 
that it adhered to these plans in the long term.  Regarding the remaining seven Members that were 
considered inactive, in recent months he had writte n to, phoned or met with the authorities of each of 
these seven Members.  While travelling, he had met with the President of Guinea and the Prime 
Minister of Chad.  He had written to the President s of Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau, to the Prime 
Minister of Dominica and to the Trade Ministers of Djibouti and Mauritania.  He had received positive signals, which suggested that it should be possible to reduce the number of inactive Members 
even further.  Also, at the beginning of June he  had written to the Ministers of all the Members 
currently in Categories I to III, inviting them to settle their arrears of+ contributions and notifying 
them that the set of Administrative Measures as approved by the General Council was now in place. 
99. He wished to remind Members of what these me asures meant, depending on the category, for 
the Members concerned:  documentation was no long er posted to them; they could no longer access 
the Members' website; their representatives could no longer be nominated to preside over WTO 
bodies; and they no longer had access to WTO technical  assistance activities.  To sum up, the number 
of Members subject to Administrative Measures had fa llen considerably, and he wished to thank those 
who had contributed to this.  He knew that ex changes with capitals on this subject could be 
particularly difficult, in that the decision-making power did not lie with those individuals.  However, 
there was still work to be done.  The Secretariat was at the disposal of the Members concerned to find 
solutions to outstanding problems.  For the first time in a very long time, it had been possible to 
seriously reduce the number of Members in Category IV, through a proactive approach in which the 
WTO had engaged with the political authorities and conducted a sustained dialogue with them.  This 
meant one could restrict to an absolute minimum the impact of actually applying the Administrative 
Measures decided upon by the General Council, par ticularly where developing countries' access to 
WTO technical assistance was concerned.  Neverthe less, for the first time in a long time, measures 
which the Members had approved and which affected th e interests of countries in arrears, particularly 
with regard to technical assistance, were actually going to be put into effect. 
100. The General Council took note of the statem ents, approved the Budget Committee's specific 
recommendations in paragraphs 8 and 13 of its report in documen t WT/BFA/125, and adopted the 
reports in WT/BFA/124 and 125. 
 WT/GC/M/132 
Page 24  
 
  7. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement 
(a) Review of waivers pursuant to Ar ticle IX:4 of the WTO Agreement 
(i) LDCs – Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to pharmaceutical products, 
granted on 8 July 2002 until 1 January 2016 (WT/L/478) 
(ii) Preferential tariff treatment for least-d eveloped countries, granted on 27 May 2009 until 
30 June 2019 (WT/L/759) 
(iii) European Union – Preferences for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and 
Montenegro, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, granted on 28 July 2006 until 31 December 2011 (WT/L/654, WT/L/814) 
(iv) European Union – Application of autonomous p referential treatment to  Moldova, granted on 
7 May 2008 until 31 December 2013 (WT/L/722, WT/L/815) 
(v) Mongolia – Export duties on raw cashmere, grant ed on 27 July 2007 until 29 January 2012 
(WT/L/695) 
(vi) United States – Former Territory of the Pacific Islands, granted on 27 July 2007 until 
31 December 2016 (WT/L/694, WT/L/816) 
(vii) United States – Caribbean Basin Economic R ecovery Act, granted on 27 May 2009 until 
31 December 2014 (WT/L/753, WT/L/817) 
(viii) United States – African Growth and Opport unity Act, granted on 27 May 2009 until 
30 September 2015 (WT/L/754, WT/L/818 and Corr.1
7) 
(ix) United States – Andean Trade Preference Act, granted on 27 May 2009 until 
31 December 2014 (WT/L/755, WT/L/819 and Corr.17) 
101. The Chairman recalled that in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article IX of the WTO 
Agreement, "any waiver granted for a period of mo re than one year shall be reviewed by the 
Ministerial Conference not later than one year af ter it is granted, and thereafter annually until the 
waiver terminates."  There were nine waivers before  the General Council for review.  With regard to 
the waiver in sub-item (i) for LDCs under the TRIPS Agreement, he noted that in connection with the 
approval of the draft waiver at the meeting of the TRIPS Council in June 2002, the Chairman of that 
Council had noted that it was understood, in regard to the review foreseen in paragraph 2 of that 
waiver, that the exceptional circumstances justif ying the waiver would continue to exist for 
least-developed country Members until its expiry date  of 2016.  Six of the waivers under review 
provided that an annual report should be submitt ed by the Members concerned regarding the 
operation or implementation of those waivers, with a view to facilitating their annual review by the 
General Council.  The reports from these Members had been circulated in documents WT/L/814 to 
819. 
102. The representative of Barbados, on behalf of CARICOM Members, thanked the United States 
for its report and noted the region's continued appreciation for the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act (CBERA) programme .  These countries also wished, once again, to thank the 
membership for its positive consideration of the 20 09 waiver request covering CBERA for the period 
up to 31 December 2014.  The recent global economic and financial crisis had necessitated that many 
                                                      
7 In English only.  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 25 
 
 
  CARICOM countries seek to further diversify their ec onomies, and CBERA had helped in this regard.  
Indeed, the beneficiaries as a whole had regist ered increased trade under CBERA over the 2009-2010 
period.  While small within the context of the United States’ overall trade, the value to beneficiaries in 
terms of diversification and cont ributing to national development should not be underestimated.  
However, the region's overall share of  imports into the US remained small, declining to 0.5 per cent of 
US world imports in 2010.  The countries of the re gion would seek to work closely with the United 
States to examine means by which greater use could be made of the programme. 
103. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago thanked the United States for its report in 
WT/L/817 on the 2010 implementation of the trade-rela ted provisions of CBERA.  He recalled that in 
2009, the US had been granted an extension of th e waiver, until December 2014, in order to provide 
preferential treatment to eligible products enumerated in th e CBERA arrangement for 17 Caribbean 
beneficiary countries, including Trinidad and Tobago.  His delegation wished to  reiterate, on behalf of 
the Caribbean Community and on its own behalf, their appreciation in this regard, because as stated in 
the report, the programme had made a significant cont ribution to all the beneficiary countries and, in 
particular, to their export diversification efforts,  with effects on expanding production bases as well as 
the range of goods exported.   In 2010, CBERA trade had accounted for barely half of one percentage 
point of US global imports, which should alla y any non-CBERA Members’ concerns about any 
crowding out of their own market access to the US.  In fact, CBERA's share of US imports had been falling from a high of 1.8 per cent in 2002 to its current  level of 0.5 per cent.  With this in mind, 
Trinidad and Tobago joined the other benefici ary members of the Caribbean Community in 
expressing the hope that the US would accord positive consideration to Suriname's eligibility request 
to become a beneficiary of this most important device for trade creation in a region which had a high 
structural dependence on trade.  The CBERA progr amme was a critical medium-term instrument for 
the promotion of growth and economic prosperity in  Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean.  It had 
stimulated the expansion of trade between the Unite d States and Trinidad and Tobago, thus promoting 
the growth of free enterprise and economic opportunity, not only for his country but also in the wider 
CARICOM region. 
104. The United States was Trinidad and Tobago's larg est trading partner, absorbing 53 per cent of 
its exports and providing approxi mately 30 per cent of its import needs.  Trinidad and Tobago 
currently supplied the largest amount of exports  receiving preferential tariff treatment under the 
CBERA arrangement.  In this regard, US im ports from Trinidad and Tobago under CBERA had 
expanded from US$1.2 billion in 2002  to US$2.2 billion in 2010, an increase of 88 per cent. In 2009, 
approximately one third of Trinid ad and Tobago’s exports to th e US had benefited from duty-free 
treatment under CBERA, amounting to  approximately 18 per cent of Trinidad and Tobago's total 
exports to the world that year.  After the entry into force of the CAFTA-DR Agreement, CBERA had 
lost six beneficiaries, and as a consequence, in 2010 Trinidad and Tobago had been the major 
beneficiary, exporting petroleum oils, methanol, and un-denatured ethyl al cohol, which constituted 
75 per cent of the products entering the US market under CBERA preferential treatment.  These 
products were among Trinidad and Tobago's major e xport items, which were de rived from its globally 
competitive energy sector, whose surplus rents were being deployed to stimulate the development of 
the non-energy sectors.  As such, the preservation of  this preference would afford it the stability and 
predictability to maintain and further strengthen the programme of reforms necessary to further 
increase national competitiveness and expand economic diversification.  CBERA had further served 
to expand foreign and domestic i nvestment in non-traditional sectors, thereby promoting job creation 
and increasing the competitiveness of domestic produc tion.  Between 2003 and 2009, the total US 
investment inflows into Trinidad and Tobago had been approximately US$3.84 billion, which 
represented 48 per cent of all FDI received during th at period.  These companies were attracted not 
only by Trinidad and Tobago's in creasingly dynamic and business-friendly climate, but also by the 
transparent market-access arra ngements guaranteed under CBERA.  The agreement had also 
strengthened Trinidad and Tobago’s capacity to pr ovide effective protection of intellectual property 
rights and had also served to enhance social stability and further cement Trinidad and Tobago's WT/GC/M/132 
Page 26  
 
  positive regional role in drug interdiction, health i ssues, and legal affairs.  The CBERA initiative was 
without doubt an indispensable vehicle to advance na tional and regional efforts at integrating into the 
global economy.  Going forward, the maximum potentia l of CBERA was yet to be achieved, and this 
could be facilitated by expanding th e scope of coverage of the arrangement in a way that would 
bolster the region's ability to cushion its vulnerab ility to international ec onomic shocks and other 
externalities.  The Caribbean Community, and Trin idad and Tobago in particular, stood ready to 
engage in a constructive dialogue with their US partners on the specific modalities by which this 
could be achieved to mutual advantage.  He applauded the US commitment to promoting the 
economic prosperity of the Caribbean, and also the favourable disposition of the WTO in making 
CBERA possible. 
105. The representative of Jamaica said his delegati on supported the statements by Barbados for 
CARICOM and by Trinidad and Tobago, and thanked the US for its report in document WT/L/817 on 
CBERA and the status of its implementation for the year 2010.  Jamaica and other Caribbean countries had been beneficiaries of CBERA since its inception.  The scope of coverage of the Act had 
facilitated the vibrant flow of trade in agricultura l and manufactured products and had assisted in the 
diversification of Jamaica’s exports.  The figures contained in the report demonstrated that in 
Jamaica's case, the volume of exports had fluctuat ed since 2002, but it recognized that the overall 
balance of trade had contributed to improvements in  production and exports, especially on the part of 
small- and medium-sized enterprises.  He reaffirmed  Jamaica's appreciation to the US Government for 
the maintenance of CBERA as a strong demonstration of its commitment to a partnership for trade 
and development with its Caribbean neighbours.  It looked forward to the continuation and 
strengthening of CBERA in the years ahead, and would continue to work closely with the US to that 
end, through their robust bilatera l and regional mechanism for cooperation in the area of trade and 
development.  Jamaica thanked Members for their support for the waivers enabling CBERA and other 
similar arrangements, and looked forward to the continuation of that support. 
106. The representative of Saint Lucia, on behalf of the Members of the Organization of Eastern 
Caribbean States (OECS), said these countries wished to join the rest of its  CARICOM colleagues in 
thanking the US for its report on the implementati on of the trade-related provisions of CBERA.  The 
OECS wished to register its continued appreci ation to the US for the CBERA programme, which 
provided opportunities for greater export diversifi cation.  It thanked the membership for having 
favourably considered the request for the extension of the waiver in 2009.  The OECS would continue 
to seek to work with the US in making fuller use of the market-access opportunities provided under 
the programme. 
107. The representative of the European Union said that regarding the EU’s Preferences for 
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serb ia and Montenegro, and the Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, the current waiver expired at  the end of 2011.  The EU was seeking to renew 
this regime until 2015 in order to continue su pporting the socio-economic development of the 
Western Balkans.  Therefore, the EU intended to  request a renewal of the waiver to cover the 
additional duration of the preferences.  Regarding the US African Growth and Opportunity Act, the 
EU wished to thank the US for the useful info rmation provided in its report on AGOA, and requested 
clarification, possibly in writing, on some aspects of  this preferential scheme.  First, he asked for 
further information on the criteria applicable to designate eligible products under this scheme.  
Second, he asked for similar inform ation regarding the criteria for a c ountry to be eligible under the 
scheme.  Third, he asked for a list of the 1,835 ta riff lines covered by AGOA.  Fourth, he asked if the 
US was considering broadening its product scope.  Fifth, he asked the US to indicate which percentage of the total volume of trade betw een AGOA beneficiaries and the US the 1,835 lines 
covered. 
108. The representative of the Plurinational State of  Bolivia said she wished to place on record 
once again Bolivia’s complaint that it had been ex cluded as a beneficiary from the tariff preferences  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 27 
 
 
  granted to Andean countries by the US under the system of preferences known as the Andean Trade 
Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA).  She recalled that as of 2000, Bolivia had been one 
of the countries benefiting from the preferences granted under the Andean  Trade Preference Act 
(ATPA) and subsequently the ATPDEA.  However, t hose benefits had been suspended by the former 
US President  on 15 December 2008.  The reason given had been that Bolivia was considered to have 
failed to comply with the ATPA eligibility crite ria concerning counter-narcotics cooperation.  In 
Bolivia's view, the suspension of ATPDEA benefits had been an arbitrary, politically-motivated and 
unjustified decision by the previous US Administration, signifying in practice a form of discrimination between beneficiary countries.  This position had been stated clearly at the meeting of 
the General Council on 29 May 2009.  On that occasi on, acting in good faith, Bolivia had not opposed 
the extension of the ATPDEA, in the hope that positi ve results would be achieved bilaterally and that 
the new Administration under President Obama would change its position and carry out a fair review 
of compliance with the eligibility criteria for ATPDEA beneficiary countries.  However, on 30 June 2009, the US Government had restated its determination to exclude Bolivia from the benefits 
of the ATPDEA, and on 14 December 2009, the US House of Representatives had approved the 
extension of the ATPDEA programmes, excluding Boliv ia.  That exclusion had been falsely justified 
on grounds of failure to comply with obligations u nder the international counter-narcotics agreement.  
Questions had also been raised in relation to Boli via’s domestic investment policies and trade policies. 
109. The Bolivian Constitution and legislation respect ed and guaranteed private property, yet the 
United States had raised this issue with her c ountry.  The Bolivian Government had nationalized 
hydrocarbons, with the result that contracts with all undertakings in the hydrocarbon sector that had a 
presence on the national territory had been renegotiate d to the benefit of both investors and Bolivia.  
In that connection, her delegation wished to share some data that clearly demonstrated Bolivia’s commitment to combating drug trafficking.  Regre ttably, cocaine was still being produced on Bolivian 
territory, which was also used for the transit of drugs between other countries.  A percentage-based 
analysis of cocaine seizures showed  that in the fiscal year 2009, 19.45 per cent of all cocaine seized 
had originated in other countries, a figure which had risen to 46.66 per cent in 2010.  In other words, 
there had been a 140 per cent increase in the trans it of cocaine produced in other countries.  During 
the term of office of President Evo Morales Ayma from 2006 to 2010, huge strides had been made in reducing and interdicting coca crops, compared w ith previous Administrations, demonstrating 
Bolivia's interest in and firm commitment to combating drugs.  Pursuant to Law No. 1008 of 19 July 1988, which provided for a minimum annual reduction of 5,000 ha of coca crops, Bolivia had 
achieved the following results:  during the years 200 6 to 2010, Bolivia had reduced coca crops by 
5,070 ha, 6,268 ha, 5,484 ha, 6,341 ha and 8,20 0 ha, respectively, making a total reduction of 
31,363 ha.  The trend had changed in 2010, marking the first step in the net reduction of coca leaf 
cultivation.  In 2011, the Boliv ian Government intended to exceed the 2010 year's figure for 
eradication, and by March more than one thousand hect ares of coca leaf had already been eradicated.  
Consequently, Bolivia had complied and was continuing to comply with the targets set in its domestic 
law and the international commitments entered into by it on this matter. 
110. For international recognition of its achievements in  relation to interdiction, she referred to the 
preface of the Coca Cultivation Survey 2009, prepared by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which stated that "the Bolivian Govern ment deserves praise for a significant increase in 
drug interdiction.  There was a 45 per cent incr ease in reported seizures of cocaine base, from 
14,912 kg to 21,641, and a 145 per cent increase in se izures of cocaine hydrochloride.  Moreover, the 
number of dismantled laboratories continued to incr ease."  Over the same period, 56,272 operations 
had been conducted, an increase of 28,053 over the previous year. Intensive actions to destroy and 
dismantle both small-scale and technified co caine facilities had been taken nationally, and 
57 processing laboratories had been destroyed between 2006 and 2010, compared to 16 during the 
previous period from 2000 to 2005.  These figures irrefutably demonstrated that Bolivia was 
complying with the commitments it had made and wa s fully engaged in combating the trafficking and 
production of narcotic drugs.  The in terdiction outcomes were the result of tenacious, sustained effort.  WT/GC/M/132 
Page 28  
 
  They were not the achievement of Bolivia alone, ho wever, but of joint, shared, sovereign action and 
collaboration with its neighbours who believed in the Bolivian strategy to combat drug trafficking, 
based on the premise that it was possible to addr ess this scourge and respect the human rights and 
cultural diversity of its peoples.  This was in cont rast with the previous period, when ATPDEA had 
been in place, but which had witnessed of violations of indigenous peoples' hu man rights.  Bolivia had 
strengthened bilateral relations a nd coordination between anti-drugs security bodies, principally with 
Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Peru.  As a result, joint intelligen ce mechanisms had been 
consolidated and commitments had been entered in to in a dignified and sovereign manner without 
external interference.  Regarding the regiona lization of the fight against drugs under UNASUR, 
Bolivia actively promoted the establishment of  the South American Council to Combat Drug 
Trafficking, which already had its own plan of acti on and strategy.  It was clear, therefore, that the 
national approach to the fight against drugs had enab led it to strengthen its national capacity to tackle 
drug trafficking in a sovereign manner and thereb y formulate policies and strategies which produced 
successful results through the implementation of pr ogrammes and projects.  Bolivia considered that 
these efforts were important and sufficient for ATPDEA eligibility, but the United States, without 
taking account of these data, had excluded Bolivia, th ereby demonstrating its political use of tariff 
preferences. 
111. For Bolivia, these trade preferenc es were of the utmost importance and sensitivity in view of 
their economic and social implications, particular ly in the manufacturing sector, because of their 
direct impact on employment and the fact that th is sector generated high va lue-added goods and goods 
for final consumption.  According to the available data, textiles and textile manufactures had been the 
Bolivian exports most significantly affected by th e ATPDEA.  Data for 2008, the last year when 
Bolivia had been covered by the ATPDEA, showed  that exports affected by the suspension of 
ATPDEA preferences had accounted for 16.9 per cent of the total value of Bolivian exports to the 
United States in that year, which was equivalent to US$89 million.  Approximately 19,300 jobs had 
been created by the ATPDEA, and according to Boli vian private sector estimates, in the absence of 
ATPDEA benefits, roughly 30 per cent of jobs in the textiles and textile manufactures sector would 
have been lost in 2009.  Job losses amounted  to 15 per cent in the camelids and camelids 
manufactures sector, and to 38 per cent in the leather manufacturing sector.  All these figures made it difficult for Bolivia, the country with the lowest development index ranking in South America, to 
achieve the Millennium Development Goals and pove rty-reduction targets.  Despite that fact, 
Bolivia's sovereign efforts outside the policies of  the "Washington consensus" had reduced extreme 
poverty by approximately 10 per cent over the pe riod 2006-2010.  For all these reasons, Bolivia 
continued to hope that a solution would be found on the basis of a fair, impartial, fact-based and full 
evaluation of the Andean countries' compliance with  the Trade Preference Act, without any political 
discrimination between the beneficiary countries, a nd it considered that the United States had the 
possibility to carry out such an evaluation.  However,  if the US persisted in an attitude inconsistent 
with the facts and data published by various multila teral and plurilateral organizations, Bolivia would 
be obliged to reserve its right to reconsider the flexible position it had taken up to now as a sign of 
goodwill under Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement.  Penalizing countries that  were determined in 
their efforts to combat drugs, as was the case at hand, by excluding them from the benefits of the ATPDEA, did not resolve the problem, but rather aggravated it and increased the vulnerability of 
those countries and organizations that were genui nely engaged in combating drug trafficking. 
112. The representative of the Dominican Republic co ngratulated the US Government for granting 
CBERA to Caribbean countries.  This was very important for Caribbean countries in terms of 
boosting their capacity and being able to attract invest ment, create jobs and promote their exports.  It 
had been an excellent vehicle for those countries at a time when they had been suffering considerable 
losses because of the erosion of their preferences.  His delegation again congratulated the US 
Government for providing special and differential treatment to the small ec onomies in the Caribbean 
Basin.  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 29 
 
 
  113. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela said his delegation had noted the 
report submitted by the United States on the extensio n of the Andean Trade Preference Act, and was 
also grateful for the statement by Bolivia, the main points of which it supported.  Bolivia had mentioned the efforts it had made and continued to ma ke to comply with the eligibility criteria laid 
down in that law.  It had also re ferred to the economic and social im pact which the failure to continue 
to benefit from the programme had.  That was why Venezuela once again urged the US Government 
to carry out an objective assessment of all the points Bolivia had raised, and to return that country as 
quickly as possible to its status as a beneficiary under the Act. 
114. The representative of Kenya, on behalf of th e African Group, thanked the United States for 
the report under the review of the AGOA waiver  in documents WT/L/818 and Corr.1.  This 
arrangement had assisted enhancing the trade rela tions between Sub-Saharan Africa and the United 
States.  The trade statistics contained in the repor t indicated that during the period 2002-2010, exports 
from Sub-Saharan Africa had increased from US$14 b illion to US$60 billion in  2010.  This was a 
demonstration that the policy the US Government ha d initiated, "Trade and Not Aid", had started to 
bear fruit.  The composition of exports was also diversifying away from textiles and petroleum. The 
conclusion was that AGOA was building trade brid ges between Sub-Saharan Africa and the US, and 
the African Group accordingly wished to thank the General Council for having granted the waiver. 
115. The representative of Ecuador thanked the US Administration for the steps it was taking in 
the US House of Representatives to approve the renewal of the Andean Trade Preference Act in 
respect of Ecuador.  As a developing country, Ecuador attached great importance to preference 
schemes such as the ATPDEA, which were a tool to  assist in the growth and economic development 
of the country's production sectors by providing for the improvement of opportunities and terms of 
market access for products that helped to diversif y export supply, so as to provide alternatives to illicit 
production activities, in accordance with the preamble  to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  Since 
its implementation in the 1990s, the system of tari ff preferences granted by the United States, which 
Ecuador regarded as consistent with the principle of co-responsibility, had become a trade-promotion 
policy that had contributed to the reduction in illicit crops and the diversification of exports to the US 
market.  Ecuador sincerely hoped that the United Stat es would approve the renewal of this preference 
scheme.  Many families employed in a significan t number of production sectors in rural areas of 
Ecuador relied upon it, directly and indirectly, and had benefited from the diversification of 
productive activities covered by the Andean Trade Preference Act. 
116. The representative of Cuba said that after liste ning carefully to the statement by Bolivia, she 
was obliged to take the floor again to repudiate the arbitrariness, double standards, selectivity and 
discriminatory policy of the United States against another Member.  The United States was not only ignorant of Bolivia’s efforts and tangible results in its fight against the scourge of drug trafficking, 
but, with political considerations uppermost, it disd ainfully ignored the facts and data published by 
several international organizations that illustrated without any doubt how much  Bolivia had done and 
would continue to do to fulfil its commitments in countering drug trafficking and drug production.  In 
the case of Ecuador, she would also venture to say th at the same kind of motives underlay the delay in 
renewal of this preferential system for that country. 
117. The representative of Brazil said his delegation had taken careful note of previous statements, 
in particular the one by Bolivia.  He recalled th at, at the General Council meeting in September 2010, 
Brazil had reiterated its traditiona l concern with actions that effectively discriminated among 
beneficiaries of preferential arrangements.  Th is would clearly include programmes operating under 
the umbrella of both the Enabling Clause and of sp ecific waivers.  Regarding waivers, he again 
recalled that WTO jurisprudence had established that  they had to be interpreted strictly, avoiding 
unnecessary trade restrictions and, of course, unw arranted discrimination among beneficiaries.  
Waivers were granted by the membership to address exceptional needs and circumstances that 
justified a departure from the disciplines to which all Members were bound.  Th erefore, without going WT/GC/M/132 
Page 30  
 
  into the specifics of the programmes under review , Brazil again recalled that programmes operating 
under these very special and limited derogations of WT O disciplines had to fully adhere to the letter 
and spirit of the waiver granted by Members. 
118. The representative of Peru express Peru’s appr eciation to the United States for the Andean 
Trade Preference Act, which had contributed to improved access for Peruvian exports to the US 
market, new investment, job creation and the economic welfare of his country.  It had had a particular 
impact on the poverty-reduction goals pursued by his Government, and on increasing the alternatives 
to unlawful coca leaf production.  Upon the entry into force of the United States-Peru Trade 
Promotion Agreement in 2009, Peru had begun a gra dual process to replace the mechanism of the 
Andean Trade Preference Act, and as a result, part  of their bilateral trade now took place within the 
framework of the above -mentioned free-trade agreement.  Regard ing Bolivia’s statement, in the light 
of Peru’s experience as a beneficiary under the ATPA mechanism and in view of the fact that its main 
goal was to "promote broad-based economic growth a nd development in the Andean countries ", and 
further that the aim of this programme was to de velop sustainable economic alternatives to coca leaf 
cultivation, his delegation urged the parties to re ach a satisfactory solution by means of direct 
consultations, so as to pave the way for restoring Bolivia 's status as a beneficiary under the 
programme as soon as possible.  Additionally, havi ng regard to the fact that renewal of this 
mechanism was pending for them, his delegation asso ciated itself with the request by Ecuador, and 
trusted that the US Government would pr ovide for such renewal as soon as possible . 
119. The representative of the United States said he wished to thank the Caribbean, African, and 
ATPA partners for their kind words on CBERA, AGOA, and ATPA preference programmes.  He 
assured Ecuador and Peru that the US Administra tion was working closely with Congress to renew 
the ATPA.  The US had taken careful note of all th e comments made by Members and, in particular, 
the questions raised by the EU.  With respect to the waiver for preferential tariff treatment for LDCs, 
it had been pleased to hear from certain Members, in cluding India, Brazil and China, in the CTD that 
they had implemented some trade-preference programmes for LDCs.    However, the US was not 
aware of specific written notifications for these pr eference programmes, in line with the General 
Council Decision in WT/L/304 and its extension in WT/L/759, for the developing-country preference 
programmes discussed in the CTD.  In an effort to  ensure full transparency of trade-preference 
programmes for LDCs, it would be helpful if all c ountries providing trade preferences to LDCs could 
notify their existing LDC preference programmes to the Council for Trade in Goods as soon as 
possible.  Such notifications would also facilitate  the implementation of the Transparency Mechanism 
for Preferential Trade Agreements approved by the General Council. 
120. The representative of Nicaragua expressed her delegation’s thanks for the submissions made 
under this agenda item.  As to the issues regardi ng the Andean Trade Prefer ence Act, she wished to 
reiterate what Nicaragua had said on this subject in the past, i.e. to urge the United States to find a solution to the concerns raised by Bolivia, based  on stability and predictab ility of relations between 
the US and Bolivia. 
121. The representative of Lesotho associated his dele gation with the statement by Kenya for the 
African Group on AGOA.  Lesotho was one of the ma jor beneficiaries of AGOA and took advantage 
of the opportunities it offered.  AGOA had brought much change to the economy of Lesotho.  A large percentage of employment in the secondary sector was in factories associat ed with AGOA.  Most 
employees, about 75 per cent, were women and mothers, some of whom were single mothers, who 
were able to support their families as a result of AGOA.  AGOA had touched the very poor at the 
bottom of the pile and had lifted them up, and thus had been directly effective in poverty reduction.  
This gesture was highly appreciated.  AGOA had even  enabled experimentation with what was called 
"better work", which was a step higher than the ILO's "decent work".  The Better Work Programme 
was progressing very well, and the plan was to ensure  that it covered the entire industrial subsector.  
Lesotho was also encouraged by the introduction of  a complementary initiative by the United States  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 31 
 
 
  designed to address the supply-side constraints, wh ich had been announced by the United States at the 
recent CTD workshop on Aid for Trade held in pr eparation for the Third Global Review.  Lesotho 
encouraged the United States to maintain course a nd preserve these dispensations, which worked and 
yielded results. 
122. The General Council  took note of the reports contained in documents WT/L/814, 815, 816, 
817, 818 and Corr.1 and 819 and Corr.1, of the stat ements, and that the Gene ral Council would revert 
to the review of multi-year waivers under Article IX.4 of the WTO Agreement at its meeting in 
December 2011. 
8. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO – Report of the Joint Advisory Group on 
its Forty-fourth Session (ITC/AG/(XLIV)/238)  
123. The Chairman said the Joint Advisory Gr oup on the International Trade Centre 
UNCTAD/WTO had held its Forty-fourth Session on 16-17 December 2010.  The report of the Joint 
Advisory Group had been distributed in document ITC/AG(XLIV)/238.  In keeping with customary practice, this report had been considered initiall y by the Committee on Trade and Development at its 
meeting on 21 June, where it had been presented by th e Executive Director of the ITC, Mrs. Patricia 
Francis, on behalf of the Chairman of the JAG,  Mr Mwape (Zambia).  He invited Mr Maruping 
(Lesotho), Chairman of the CTD, to make a statem ent on the Committee's consid eration of this report. 
124. Mr Maruping (Lesotho), Chairman of the De dicated Session of the CTD, said the Joint 
Advisory Group on the International Trade Centre  UNCTAD/WTO had held its Forty-fourth Session 
on 16 and 17 December 2010.  The report on th at meeting was contained in document 
ITC/AG/(XLIV)/238.  The Executive Director of the ITC, Ms Patricia Francis, had presented the 
report to the CTD at its meeting on 21 June 2010, on behalf of the Chairman of the Forty-fourth 
Session of the JAG, Mr Mwape (Zambia), who had been unable to attend.  Ms Francis had informed the CTD that the JAG meeting had been convene d to discuss the ITC’s Annual Report for 2009, the 
Consolidated Programme Document for 2010, and the ITC’s draft Operational Plan for 2011.  She had 
said that in 2009, the ITC had concluded the change  management process.  The organization had been 
actively participating in the regional and global Aid for Trade reviews in order to ensure that the 
private sector voice was well represented and that tr ade was mainstreamed as a tool for achieving the 
Millennium Development Goals.  In 2010, the ITC had prioritized its work on LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS 
and Sub-Saharan Africa and had focused on progra mmes for gender, environment and poverty.  The 
JAG had provided the ITC with useful guidan ce on its annual programme of work and had 
acknowledged the impact of the ITC's capacity -building work.  The Group had welcomed 
improvements in the presentation and content of  the ITC's Annual Report, and had expressed 
satisfaction at the progress made in embedding re sults-based management into the organization's 
work.  The ITC had been encouraged to work further on results-based management.  The Group had 
additionally endorsed the proposal to move the JAG meeting from December  of each year to the 
second quarter of the year, thus enabling the ITC to present the Annual Report for the previous year in 
a more timely manner.  The Group had also applauded the ITC's growing emphasis on regionally 
structured solutions, while stressing the importance of the country ownership of projects.  The ITC had been encouraged to ensure that multi-country programmes contributed to regional integration.  
The JAG had taken note of the Consolidated Pr ogramme Document for 2010 and of the draft 2011 
Operational Plan.  Finally, Ms Francis had informed the CTD of voluntary contributions that had been 
announced at the JAG meeting.  In this regard, she had expressed thanks to the Governments of 
Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, No rway and Switzerland for their expressions of 
financial support to the organization.  The CTD ha d taken note of the JAG report and had forwarded it 
to the General Council for adoption. 
125. The representative of Jamaica thanked the CTD Chair for his statement on the work of the 
ITC.  His delegation wished to  reiterate its appreciation to the ITC for its support of trade WT/GC/M/132 
Page 32  
 
  capacity-building programmes in the Caribbean, and Ja maica in particular. Jamaica also wished to 
endorse the renewed thrust of the ITC toward s results-based management and to commend the 
Executive Director of the ITC and her team fo r their leadership role and support for trade 
capacity-building and other programmes in  developing countries like Jamaica. 
126. The representative of Canada welcomed the re port from and commended the work undertaken 
by the ITC, including on the 2010 Annual Report, which provided a stronger analytical approach than 
in previous years.  Canada encouraged the ITC to continue its implementation of a robust 
results-based management system to maximize its development impact, including by elaborating an 
ITC-wide logical framework and rolling out appropri ate training to senior-lev el staff. It looked 
forward to working with the ITC clo sely on this issue over the coming year. 
127. The General Council took note of the statements and adopted the report of the Joint Advisory 
Group in document ITC/AG/(XLIV)/238. 
9. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Lao People's Democratic 
Republic - Statement by the Chairman 
128. The Chairman informed Members that following  consultations with Members of the Working 
Party and the authorities of Lao PDR, and in keep ing with usual WTO practice, it had been agreed 
that Ambassador Yi (China) would serve as Chairp erson of this Working Party, replacing Dr. Zhang 
(China), who would shortly be l eaving Geneva and would no longer be available to serve in this 
capacity.  On behalf of the General Council, he wished to thank Dr Zhang for having served as 
Chairperson of this Working Party. 
129. The General Council took note of the statement. 
10. Chairmanships of the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of the 
Committee on Trade and Environment - Statement by the Chairman 
130. The Chairman recalled that as he had announced in  a fax sent to delegations on 9 June, he was 
carrying out consultations regarding the appointment  of successors to Amb.Walker (New Zealand), 
Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, and Amb. Teehankee 
(Philippines), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment, who had 
both informed him that they had been recalled to th eir capitals to take up other appointments.  He 
reported that his consultations, which he was conducting with the assistance of Amb. Johansen 
(Norway), Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, a nd Ambassadors Matus (Chile) and Gero (Canada), 
former Chairmen of the General Council, were approaching consensus on these appointments.  
However, more time would be needed before such  consensus was reached.  He therefore intended to 
come back to this process after the summer break. 
131. The General Council took note of the statement. 
11. Administrative Measures for Members in  arrears - Statement by the Chairman 
132. The Chairman recalled that at its meeting in  May 2006, the General Council had approved a 
recommendation from the Committee on Budget, Fina nce and Administration regarding revised 
Administrative Measures for Members in arrears.   Among these Administrative Measures was a 
requirement that, at each meeting of the General Council, the Chairman of the Committee on Budget, 
Finance and Administration should provide informat ion with regard to which Members were under 
Administrative Measures in Categories II through IV.  He invited the Chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Mr Vaaranmaa (Finland), to prov ide the Council with this information.   WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 33 
 
 
  133. Mr Vaaranmaa (Finland), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration, said that as required by the deci sion of the General Council, he would list the 
Members under Categories II through IV of the Admini strative Measures as at 26 July 2011.  There 
were two Members in Category II:  Nicaragua and th e Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  There were 
two Members in Category III:  Saint Kitts and Nevi s, and Uganda.  There were seven Members in 
Category IV:  Chad, Djibouti, Dominica, Guinea,  Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Sierra Leone. 
134. The Chairman said that under the revised Admi nistrative Measures, he was also required at 
each Council meeting to request those Members in Ca tegories III and IV of the Measures to inform 
him, before the next meeting of the General Counc il, as to when their payment of arrears might be 
expected.  Since the May meeting of the Gene ral Council, he had received a communication from 
Uganda indicating that it would make payments of  its arrears during the fourth quarter of 2011. 
135. The General Council took note of the statements. 
Prior to the closing of the meeting 
136. The Chairman said he wished to invite delegati ons to take note that the last General Council 
meeting of the year would be held on 1-2 Decemb er, which was earlier than was customary.  This 
earlier timing was due to the Eighth Ministerial Conference, which would take place 
on 15-17 December.  He noted that this earlier date  would require some of the Council's subsidiary 
bodies to also meet earlier than usual, so that th eir Annual Reports could be submitted in due time. 
 WT/GC/M/132 
Page 34  
 
  ANNEX I 
Statements by delegations at the informal meeting 
of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
on 26 July 2011 
 
 
 At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the above-mentioned meeting are included below as part of th e Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
  1. Bangladesh for the LDC Group 
 
 Thank you, Pascal, for sharing the report on  your consultations. We are all awaiting a 
meaningful and forward-looking outcome from the Ministerial Conference in December. We commit ourselves to making every possible effort, from now  until December, to make MC8 a success. I am 
confident that this is a sentiment shared across the board.  When you first mooted the idea of possible 
deliverables from MC8, we all agreed that we s hould try striking a balance between our ambition for 
the conclusion of Doha and the practicable realities on the ground.  Accordingly, we identified a set of 
LDC-specific priority issues as having the most le gitimate ground for being delivered from MC8. This 
early-harvest package is very much in line with the Doha mandate and in no way would compromise 
the Single Undertaking principle of the ongoing DDA negotiations. There emerged a broad 
convergence among the membership about these LDC- specific issues as the essential building block 
for any possible MC8 outcome.  We must acknowledge  that it would be rather naïve to qualify an 
LDC-specific outcome at this point as an “early harvest”.  These are commitments that our Ministers made more than a decade ago.  In fact, for the milli ons of peoples in LDCs, this would be a rather late 
harvest, after having waited for a decade of dry spell since Doha. However, this would send a clear 
and unequivocal message to the outside world that we remain steadfast in our commitment to the 
conclusion of Doha. A concrete set of deliverables for LDCs can be a critical litmus test for the success and feasibility of the DDA negotiations.   It is, indeed, time that we translate these commitments into tangible and result-oriented 
outcomes for LDCs. The facts and figures on the gr ound are stacked against any further attempt to 
shift the goalpost for reaching these commitments. The recent food, fuel and financial crises have 
exacted a hefty price on LDCs, rolling back their hard-earned development gains. We need not wait 
for even greater disasters to befall LDCs to give  us a rude awakening into action. For over one 
decade, the LDCs have pinned their hope on taming th e elusive unicorn of the conclusion of Doha in 
the belief that it would help unlock their deve lopment potential through integration into the 
multilateral trading system. This has nonetheless re mained largely a myth for them.  The global 
political leadership has remained sensitive to these concerns. We have seen a reaffirmation of their 
commitments to LDCs time and again, including in  the G20 Declarations in the aftermath of the 
global financial and economic cris is. Recently, the Fourth UN LDC Conference has reiterated the call 
for delivering on these commitments through the Istanbul Programme of Action for LDCs. We 
appreciate the political will demonstrated by many Members to live up to these commitments.  For 
instance, there have been some autonomous deci sions taken by some Members regarding duty-free 
and quota-free (DFQF) market access for LDCs. Howeve r, this falls short of our decision in Hong 
Kong to implement DFQF market access for LDCs within a multilateral framework, with in-built 
flexibilities for those in a position to offer such acce ss. The agreement reached in this regard is a fait 
accompli.  What the LDCs have been asking for sin ce Hong Kong is to attain clarity on the 
implementation of this provision. They have de monstrated their understanding and flexibility by 
waiting for Members who had expressed their difficulty in implementing the provision.  Furthermore, they remain ready to engage with those that w ould like to implement the provision in a progressive 
yet meaningfully enhanced manner.  In order to dispel any unwarranted misgivings, we need to  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 35 
 
 
  understand the real cost implications for an agre ement on, and implementation of, the LDC-specific 
deliverables at MC8. As the existing figures illustra te, the share of LDCs in developed countries’ 
imports is a meager 1.26 per cent, of which onl y 0.7 per cent account for non-oil imports. It is 
inconceivable that agreement and implementation of an early harvest package for LDCs, even in its 
entirety, would put any further considerable stra in on developed countries’ imports. In case we do 
honestly mean to double the share of LDCs’ exports in  the next decade, this is an exercise we must 
commit ourselves to without resorting to any further de lay.  We have always maintained that the LDC 
package for MC8 should be delinked from other issu es. It would be rather unfortunate, and an 
injustice, if the LDC-specific issues were to be held hostage to divergences over the so-called 
LDC-Plus package. Yet once again, LDCs need not bear the brunt of political differences on a much 
broader canvas that would hardly be impact ed by any change to their situation. 
  In case LDCs were to lower the threshold of their ambition for MC8, we must ascertain and 
ascribe clear responsibilities for any such eventuality . We have conveyed our interest in discussing 
some selected non-DDA issues at MC8 that would help address certain outstanding systemic 
challenges before the membership of this organizati on. However, at this juncture, we must remain 
cautious about conflating or supplanting LDC-re lated non-DDA issues with the clearly identified 
LDC early-harvest package. We must also st art working towards agreeing on a post-MC8 work 
programme on DDA negotiations, with due attention given to LDC concerns and interest.  We urge 
Members to recognize that what th e LDCs are asking for has a leg itimate basis in the commitments 
they had secured so far, more so since they ar e long overdue. We have be en patiently waiting for a 
window of opportunity to see these commitments bear  fruit, especially since Hong Kong. But, every 
time there has been a chink in our wall, we have  met with another insurmountable one, as if in 
concentric circles. We must wake up to the fact that  this is eating away at the very foundations of our 
House. We cannot afford to make repeated retreat s from hitting against these walls since it would be 
tantamount to surrendering to defeat. What is at st ake is the trust in any further agreement reached 
between Members.  Once again, MC8 offers us a ch ance to join our ranks and make an advance in the 
right direction.  It is writ large on the walls  that MC8 can and should deliver for LDCs. 
 
2. Brazil 
 
Let me start by thanking you for your report on the consultations you have been holding since 
our last informal meeting and for your views on where we are and about possible approaches on the 
way forward.  I should initially note – like you di d in your report to us – that the reason why we 
decided to work on possible DDA deliverables for th e December Ministerial Conference was the fact 
that we concluded, last Easter, that the full DDA Single Undertaking could no t be finalised in 2011. 
We wanted to send a message to the world at la rge, showing that Members could still agree on 
meaningful truly multilateral outcomes. A critical element of that message was the delivery of a 
package that had development and the LDCs at its core.  However, the LDC package we originally 
conceived had to be enlarged – becoming an LDC- Plus package – because some Members felt that 
they needed more elements in the mix, so as to enable positive political consideration by their 
domestic constituencies. We now have to come to grips with the fact that, for a number of reasons, the 
LDC-Plus package is not going to come together. This situation stems from apparently 
insurmountable difficulties signalled by a number of Members in the various areas that composed the 
enlarged mini-package we were working with. The “red lines” came from both developed and 
developing countries, from G7 and non-G7 countri es, with arguments both for raising and for 
lowering ambition.  In short, the “plus” package proved to be simply and unequivocally unmanageable and undoable within the timeframe ava ilable.  This realisation, however, should not 
lead us to a hastened conclusion that deliverables for LDCs are impossible.  Nor did LDC deliverables 
become undesirable or unnecessary. For Brazil, the credibility and legitimacy of any outcomes at the 
Eighth Ministerial Conference will be tested agai nst our capacity to deliver on issues that are 
development-friendly and of direct interest to th e poorest among us. Brazil was and continues to be 
ready to work in the direction of an LDC-orient ed outcome by December.  Nonetheless, given the WT/GC/M/132 
Page 36  
 
  short amount of time that separates us from the next Ministerial, we must also engage more urgently 
and intensely on two issues that so far have stayed mostly in the background. First, we must consider 
how to address relevant non-DDA issues that already are – or could become – part of our regular 
work and that could be addressed at MC8.  Second,  we must also, in a frank and open-minded way, 
discuss how we intend to proceed in the period be tween MC8 and MC9, both for regular WTO work 
and for the DDA Single Undertaking. We must find wa ys to ensure that (i) we don’t throw away the 
progress achieved over a decade of negotiations; and ( ii) we prepare the playing field for future 
progress in and conclusion of the Single Undertaking when political  circumstances so permit.  We 
must use the summer break to reflect on these issues, consult with our capitals, and talk to each other 
so that, when we resume work in September, we are in a position to engage fully, meaningfully, and 
objectively in the preparations for the Ministerial C onference.  In conclusion, we remain committed to 
working intensively and constructively with you and with the other Members in the coming months in 
order to ensure a successful Eighth Ministerial Conference.  
3. China 
 
 I appreciate your report on the consultations you have held and your personal assessment of 
the current state of play.  We listened very carefu lly to the statements just made by the LDC Group, 
ACP and African Group. We share their concerns and support their reasonable demands.  Since the 
last informal TNC meeting, our focus has remain ed on efforts to work out a small package by 
December.  It is worth recalling the value of ha ving a December package:  although the Doha Round 
is not going to conclude this year as all of us have hoped for, a small package by December would 
maintain the Round alive and keep the ball of the Single Undertaking rolling.  Moreover, if MC8 has 
nothing to deliver on Doha, not even on the need s of the LDCs, the credibility of the WTO will be 
jeopardized.  In order to help LDCs to work out a December package, we have been constructively 
engaged in the intensive discussions since May. Howe ver, there is growing evidence after two months 
that an LDC package is not doable if we put any “p lus” on it. The intention of various Members to put 
on their own demands keeps the “plus” growing every day, which would finally kill the core package 
that the LDCs really need. So, we must make a qui ck and simple decision that either we collectively 
work out an LDC-only package or we might have no p ackage. That is the difficult and painful reality 
we have to face.  We strongly believe that MC8 in December and the WTO as a whole should address 
LDC concerns. The reasons are simple and straightforward.  First, developmental needs of the LDCs 
are most pressing and therefore should be tackled w ith priority and urgency.  Second, commitments 
were already made in favor of the LDCs long befo re, at MC6 in Hong Kong.  It is about time to 
implement them without further delay. Therefore, I would like to declare that, with or without an LDC 
package in December, China will honor its commitment  in Hong Kong to raise the level of DFQF for 
LDCs’ products from the current level of 60 per cent to 95 per cent.  If there is a collective judgment 
that even an LDC-only package is beyond our reach, we need to start discussing what else we can do 
at MC8 for the LDCs so that the DDA can live up to its title of a Development Round. At the same 
time, we also need to pool our wi sdom to work out a roadmap for post-December, bearing in mind the 
three non-options in your Easter reports, namely “business as usual”, “stop and reboot” and drifting. 
On all accounts, our decade-long efforts should not be swept under the carpet. Ministers must voice clearly their commitments to the Single Undertaking and the development objective of the Round.  
We are about to recess. When we come back in Sept ember, there will be only three months left before 
MC8. Apart from Doha, Ministers also have other regular WTO affairs to attend to. The clock is 
ticking and we have no time to lose. We need to focus our attention and resources to work on some 
credible deliverables for MC8. So I suggest that all of us make good use of August to do some serious 
reflectioning. China will be ready to join the efforts to finish the Long March of the Round. 
 
4. Cuba 
 
 We appreciate your candid assessment of the st atus of negotiations.  We also support the 
statements by Bangladesh on behalf of the l east-developed countries, Jamaica for the ACP, the  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Dominican Republic for the Informal Group of Deve loping Countries, Kenya on behalf of the African 
Group, and Barbados on behalf of the SVEs, and we endorse what wa s said by Bolivia and Ecuador.  
Cuba shares the disappointment expressed by th e delegations that preceded us and deplores the 
difficulties that have prevented us in recent months from achieving any result favourable to 
development.  We clearly indicated from the beginning the risk that we would be taking if we agreed 
to make an LDC-Plus package conditional upon the LDC package.  We reiterate that these are not 
interchangeable.  As we stated at the previous TNC, my delegation believes that it would be an 
embarrassment if a package to meet  the needs and priorities of the LDCs cannot even be achieved by 
December.  The current internati onal scenario, characterized by deep economic, financial, food and 
environmental crises, is a propitious context for fo cusing all our efforts on solving the long-standing 
problems that affect at least the poorest countries in this organization.  It is an inescapable duty and 
obligation of the WTO at this time.  It is shamef ul that the number of people living in extreme poverty 
has increased around the world.  Only in sub-Saha ran Africa and some parts of Asia do poverty and 
hunger remain at such high levels that it becomes difficult to reduce them.  The absence of a solution 
to these serious problems will also affect, as it has already, the industrialized societies, where the 
number of unemployed people is increasing.  It will knock on everyone's door, whether through 
uncontrolled and unmanageable migration flows or through disease and epidemics as a result of the 
conflicts generated by poverty and hunger.  Cuba reaffirms that, if  the political will existed among the 
developed countries, much could be done in the WTO to ensure the right to development of billions of 
people around the world.  We are willing to continue working, but with a view to, and with all attention focused on, first resolving or settling this  organization's historic debt to development. 
 
5. Dominican Republic for the IGDC 
 
 I would like to thank you for your report and for the tireless efforts you have made to bring 
the Doha Round to a successful conclusion.  Let me assure you that your efforts are well recognized 
and appreciated by the developing countries.  Devel oping countries are deeply disappointed that so far 
your efforts to find a package of deliverables for our Eighth Ministerial Conferences have not yielded any concrete results.  It is truly shameful that we cannot even agree on a minimal confidence-building 
set of decisions to reaffirm the developmental mandate of the Doha Round and help the poorest 
Members of the organization.  In our discussions on the way forward for the Doha Round we have 
come up with four simple points of agreement:  Fi rst, we should continue to relentlessly pursue the 
development mandate in the Round as it was given to us at Doha, in the July 2004 Package, and at 
Hong Kong.  Second, we should continue with the guiding principle of these negotiations, which is 
that of a Single Undertaking, delivering results on all aspects of the Round.  Third, we insist on 
producing a deliverable package for the LDCs for MC8.   Fourth, it is extremely important to have a 
clear roadmap, approved by Ministers in December, with concrete timelines and milestones for all 
DDA issues, in particular those regarding market a ccess.  I would like also to reiterate our strong 
commitment to collectively find a way forwar d in the negotiations to produce an ambitious,  balanced 
and development-oriented Doha Round package.  In this line of thinking, we agree with you that a 
shared diagnosis should be undertaken as soon as po ssible with delegations to determinate how we 
will move this negotiation forward.  6. Dominican Republic  
 
 My country, the Dominican Republic, thanks you for your tireless efforts over many months to bring the Single Undertaking of the Doha Devel opment Round to a successful conclusion.  We also 
recognize your tremendous optimism about achieving at  least a small part of this at the Eighth 
Ministerial Conference.  The LDC package, involvi ng countries whose share of global trade is only 1 
per cent, was approved in principle six years ago in Hong Kong.  As Mr Robert Zoellick, President of 
the World Bank and former United States trade negotiato r, stated recently in this same room, the key 
to the conclusion of the Round is not and has not been  within these four walls.  Rather, it resides in a 
global leadership that appears to have been exhausted by the crisis.  It is said, as an argument for not WT/GC/M/132 
Page 38  
 
  approving the Round, that the current situation is not the same, that it is very different from what it 
was ten years ago at the start of the Round, which was in fact launched in the midst of a crisis of collective uncertainty, a few months after the fatefu l day of 11 September 2001, in order to encourage 
global optimism and close the gaps in the trade rules and thus promote development of the less 
economically developed Members.  The leadership at  the time accurately grasp ed the needs of that 
historic moment.  Naturally, in ten years many even ts happen, and the characteristic of this decade has 
been the emergence of major and recurring global cr ises, which, surprisingly, began in developed 
economies:  financial, economic, food and energy cri ses and, most recently, the public debt crisis in 
developed countries, which is already beginning to be  called a possible perfect storm.  The debts arose 
from many years of excessive government spending by these developed economies, including massive 
subsidies to agricultural goods and to banks and co mpanies in the recent crisis.  This situation 
adversely affected the competitiveness of similar goods from less developed countries, which do not 
have the privilege of being reserve currency issu ers and therefore being able to avoid having the 
International Monetary Fund re-educate them in the prudent management of their fiscal and monetary 
policies.  What the less developed economies did get out of these crises was 100 million more poor 
people as a result of the financial crisis and 40 million more as a result of the current food crisis.  This 
situation shows a growing inability on the part of  world leaders to implement global public policies 
for dealing with these complex problems, and to antic ipate crises like the one caused by the excesses 
of the bankers, and the one that is  now emerging because of the flow of speculative investment capital 
into the food market, causing famine, and into th e currency market, destroying production, exports 
and permanent jobs in emerging economies through th e relentless appreciation of their currencies   
speculative investment triggered by expansive monetary policies.  Indeed, an expert in conspiracy 
theory would think that the strong appreciation of the Swiss franc by almost 40 per cent is a clever 
strategy on the part of developed countries to dr ive the least developed countries and small vulnerable 
economies out of the game here in Geneva, winning by default, as we say in baseball parlance.  In the 
midst of this situation, they now want to extinguis h the light of world trade, the only light that has 
shone steadily and served as a beacon for policies th at have stimulated economic growth in recent 
years.  It is the liberalization of world trade sin ce the birth of this Organization 17 years ago that has 
been the engine of global growth.  It has brought tens of millions of peopl e out of poverty and has 
integrated them into the mainstream of a population demanding goods and services which transcend 
national boundaries and create employment, production a nd hope in other parts of the world.  While 
the flow of world trade has once ag ain returned to its pre crisis levels, the flow of global direct 
investment remains 37 per cent below its pre crisis peak level, according to the World Investment 
Report 2011 published yesterday by UNCTAD.  The reason for this is that big capital, instead of investing in production and research, is now looking fo r higher and faster short term income.  This is 
a danger sign for the future of humanity.  What can we do, Mr Chairman?  Neither you nor any of us 
here can do anything, except to warn world leaders of the dire consequences that deviation from our 
path towards the trade driven globalization of develo pment would have for the future of our peoples.  
In conclusion, I ask you to excuse the temerity of  my ignorance, but as the former Spanish Prime 
Minister, Mr Felipe González, noted in an intervie w last year, "Impatience makes you impertinent and 
you say things that you should avoid saying, or should say differently."  Thank you very much, and may the Creator bless us, reduce our ego and increase our human solidarity.  7. Ecuador 
 
We appreciate your report on the status of th e negotiations and the efforts made by you to 
reach a conclusion to the Doha Round.  We note w ith concern and frustration the lack of tangible 
progress in putting together a possible smaller packag e for the Eighth Ministerial Conference.  This 
reflects the inability both to reach agreements to refu te in practice the growing chorus of questioning 
with regard to the credibility of the negotiating proc ess as a whole, and at the same time to contribute 
to the development of the most vulnerable Members of this organization.  Despite the bleak picture 
that you have presented in your report, we are confident that through a frank, open and constructive 
dialogue, in which mercantilist interests are put aside,  we will be able to reach minimum agreements  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 39 
 
 
  by December.  This will reaffirm the operational efficiency and effectiven ess of the multilateral 
trading system and provide clear guidelines for the future  work of this organization.  In this regard, we 
are very interested in your call for a collective diagnos is of the reasons that le d us to the situation we 
face, which you rightly described as paralysis.  We are convinced that only by acknowledging and 
rectifying the mistakes of the past can we move fo rward firmly in the future.  As we have stated, 
Ecuador could support a smaller pack age to keep development at the core, and in the past we have 
referred to the areas that we believe could be part of an outcome with these features.  However, given 
the situation we face, we would just like to st ress the relevance of Annex C of the draft Cancún 
Declaration, a document that aims to operationalize the principle of special and differential treatment in different areas and whose adoption at the next Ministerial Conference would be a positive sign of 
Members' commitment to the "development dimensi on" in the multilateral trading system.  We know 
that some Members are interested in starting di scussions on new issues, which have been called “21
st 
century” issues.  Although Ecuador is open to e ngaging constructively in any discussions in that 
regard, we are not convinced of the benefit of embarking on such discussions when it has still not 
been possible to fulfil the mandate given by our Mini sters in Doha over ten years earlier, and to fulfil 
the promise of development. 
 
8. Hong Kong, China 
 
 Thank you for the report on your consultations in recent weeks.  This has given us more 
clarity as to the targets and potential deliverables for MC8 in December.  You have categorised three 
tracks of issues that we must consider addressi ng prior to MC8.  Although, as we believe, all 
Members aspire to work towards a meaningful  and substantive Ministerial Conference, the 
negotiations since the last TNC over LDC issues have  evidently so far failed to produce the desired 
result.  An outcome centred on LDC issues would be  in line with the development mandate of the 
Round, and paragraphs 2 and 47 of the Hong K ong Ministerial Declaration have specifically 
reaffirmed Members’ commitment to help LDCs integrate themselves into the multilateral trading 
system.  In our original assessment a few months ear lier, LDC issues were very doable, as was agreed 
by Ministers in Hong Kong in 2005.  From the pers pective of what is good both for the system and for 
the least-developed Members of the WTO, these are is sues that remain worth pursuing, as we try to 
figure out precisely how to break the logjam in othe r less tractable areas of the DDA.  We see the 
merit of continuing our reflecti ons over the summer and in any sub sequent discussions taking place in 
preparation for the December Ministerial.  In parallel, we share the view that we should focus our 
attention in the few months ahead on the other two tracks, in order to take the opportunity to seek political guidance from Ministers on the challeng es outside the DDA facing the multilateral trading 
system and the operation of the WTO, as well as on the post-MC8 work programme for the DDA 
negotiations.  We welcome the consultations curren tly being organised by the Chair of the General 
Council, and you as the Chair of the TNC, on these cruc ial issues.  As we aim to deliver a credible 
and substantive outcome for MC8, we must recognise the very limited time we have, and be prepared 
to engaged thoroughly, positively and gainfully after the summer break.   
 
9. Indonesia for ASEAN  
 
Let me begin by voicing our continued apprecia tion for all the hard work you have done in 
advancing the DDA negotations, incl uding your latest process of consultations with Members in view 
of securing a package for our Ministerial meeting in December.  At our last meeting in June, ASEAN made some key points. First. that ASEAN supporte d an LDC-Plus package as a crucial building block 
for all Members to realise the benefits of the ov erall Doha agenda.  ASEAN, with two LDC Members 
and one nearing accession, supports the need to accord the necessary priority to LDC issues, including 
a meaningful implementation of DFQF with simple  and predictable rules of origin.  However, 
ASEAN has also been concerned th at there has been little traction in negotiations. We therefore 
endorse the approach which you have outlined on th e way forward, that the membership devote our 
energies after the summer to discussing a post-D ecember work programme and non-DDA issues, and WT/GC/M/132 
Page 40  
 
  at the same time try to identify development de liverables for the LDCs.   Looking forward, ASEAN 
also believes that on important issues such as Trad e Facilitation, where there have been extremely 
constructive negotiation, we must not allow work to slow down. We supported the inclusion of TF as 
part of the outcome for MCR. We believe that impor tant work which benefits all Members, such as 
TF, can and should continue regardless of what shap e or form our outcome finally takes in December. 
ASEAN has first-hand experience of how Trade Faci litation can play a key role in regional economic 
integration and in boostin g growth in all ASEAN members. We can therefore see the benefits that it 
will eventually bring to all WTO Members, both developed and developing economies.  The second 
point that ASEAN made in June was that it would be  equally important for Members to also decide on 
a clear work programme on all other DDA issues that will be addressed post-MC8. We also stand by 
this statement.  When we return from our summe r break, we must focus our  efforts 100 per cent on 
what can and what must be achieved by MC8.  Besides a good outcome on non-DDA issues, MC8 must provide strong Ministerial support for us to begin work as soon as possible on all DDA issues not agreed on by December.  In order to do this, Me mbers must be prepared, in September, to have an 
honest and sincere discussion of the realities whic h define our work on the DDA. This includes 
discussions, and a shared assessment, on why we have not been able to conclude the Round.  This 
discussion should not be a negotiation. Instead, we must  all discuss this in a sincere manner, bearing 
in mind the value of the multilateral trading system  to all our economies and what we can each do to 
strengthen the system. How we decide to proceed with our negotiating agenda will have a significant 
impact on the credibility of our orga nisation.  We cannot proceed with more of the same from our past 
few years.  ASEAN recognises that this will be a di fficult discussion, but it is one we must have, in 
order to realise a credible way forward for our fu ture work.  ASEAN therefore calls for collective 
leadership, especially among the majors, to particip ate in this very important discussion on the future 
work of our organisation post-December. ASEAN is fully committed to participating fully and 
sincerely in this discussion.  10. Jamaica for the ACP Group 
 
Allow me to thank you for your sober report on the state of play regarding the negotiation of 
an LDC-Plus package for December and to expr ess appreciation for the efforts that you have 
deployed.  I also wish to thank Ambassador Elin of Norway and Ambassador Fook Seng of Singapore for their work as facilitators on th e LDC Services waiver and rules of  origin, respectively.  We are 
disappointed at the inability to secure the LDC -focused package in time for MC8. We expressed 
concern at the linkages in the “p lus” package and conditions on the LD C deliverables that arose in the 
discussions of the package for MC8. We remain hopeful that the mandate for LDC measures will continue to be given due attention in our further deliberations, including on the post-MC8 track.  We 
are committed to working on the two tracks that you mentioned and advise that the ACP stands ready 
to work constructively to this end. We welcom e in particular your initiative to further advance 
consultations on the work plan for the DDA post-2011. We, at the level of the ACP, stand ready to 
engage in these consultations.  
11. Jamaica 
 
Jamaica also supports the two-track approach th at has been proposed to move the current 
negotiations forward. We agree with other speak ers that the challenges confronting the DDA should 
not be allowed to overshadow the broader agenda of the WTO.  We also reaffirm the need for 
deliverables at MC8 and in the period thereafter to re flect a clear commitment to development.  In this 
regard, we underscore the need for the adoption of a meaningful set of measures in support of LDCs 
and that any additional deliverables must also dem onstrate a commitment to development.  Finally, 
we recognize the sense of disappointment that all of us feel at this time. Nevertheless, we 
acknowledge that realism must always guide our work and we intend to continue our efforts with that 
in mind.   WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 41 
 
 
  12. Republic of Korea 
 
Thank you very much for sharing with us the out come of your recent consultations in various 
geometry.  Indeed, I very much appreciate your sincere efforts to get the ball rolling.  I share your sober assessment with great disappointment that an LD C-Plus package is not viable, or that even an 
LDC-only package would not be possible as an earl y harvest.  The bottom line, however, is that 
Members should continue to work hard to achieve  meaningful progress on the occasion of MC8.  In 
this regard, we support the approach you have just laid out.  We are ready and willing to work closely, 
together with all other Members, in order to a dvance our mutual goal on the occasion of MC8.  From 
our perspective, the first and foremost task for us is to come up with a robust post-MC8 roadmap 
aimed at rejuvenating the DDA negotiations.  Even if the LDC-only package is not possible, we 
should continue to explore ways on how to accomm odate LDC aspirations, for instance, by way of 
strengthening Aid for Trade, improving LDC accessi on processes, and so on.  Korea is willing to 
actively and constructively engage in the future consultations on the way forward. 
 
13. Malaysia  
Malaysia would like to endorse the statem ents by Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN and 
Australia on behalf of the Cairns Group.  We would like to thank you for your tireless efforts in the consultation process these past weeks and to c onvey our appreciation for your frank and honest 
assessment on where we are on the state of play of  the current negotiations.  In the previous TNC 
meeting in June, we had categor ically given our support to an LDC package and an additional 
package known as LDC-Plus that could be harvested  as early deliverables for MC8.  Our endorsement 
of such a proposal is premised on the understanding  that the mini-package would form part of the 
building block of the final outcome of a full package of deliverables of the Doha Development Agenda.  However, we understand fro m your assessment that there are roadblocks in going down this 
road, and for that we are deeply disappointed, as this could ultimately de rail future efforts in 
delivering on the full package.  Hence, we fully support your proposal to focus on the doable track, 
that is, to move on the DDA and non-DDA issues post MC 8, while continuing to find ways to deliver 
on the LDC issues that would satisfy LDC aspirations .  While we fully subscribe to intensifying all 
our efforts in trying to resolve the deadlock in delivering on the LDC package, this however should 
not be done at the expense of all other DDA or non-DDA issues that form the bedrock of our 
institution.  In our view, there are a number of issues on the table that are of interest to many 
Members across the board and which are ripe for furt her consolidation or which could form a basis for 
more tangible outcomes. Thus, we agree with you that the various Negotiating Groups should 
continue to work earnestly in exploring convergen ces in moving the negotiations forward.  Issues 
such as trade facilitation for example, should be a llowed to move ahead on its own track and not be 
held hostage to other intractable areas of negotia tion. This is one area which should be further 
explored in terms of a balanced outcome, as the benefits of such an agreement would benefit all 
Members in terms of reduction in costs of internatio nal trade transactions, while promoting efficiency, 
transparency and predictability in the conduct of tr ade across international borders.  As we have 
reiterated before in the previous TNC meetings, discussions on a clea r, targeted work programme to 
address all DDA issues should begin expeditiously. We have no time to lose.  At the same time, work 
should also be put on full throttle on the non-DDA i ssues which are just as criti cal to the sanctity and 
credibility of this organisation that we all belong to. Discussions should be intensified after summer, 
such that by the time Ministers congregate here in  December, sufficient preparations, in terms of 
substance and process, are in place to provide a conducive platform for Ministers to engage in 
meaningful exchanges.  The ro ad ahead is a thorny one, and we should realistically condition 
ourselves for a bumpy ride, however this should not  deter us from having an honest conversation on 
how to get out of the quagmire we are in. We shou ld approach it with pragmatism and sincerity in 
assessing the best way forward, while fully cognizant of  the impact of our actions on the credibility of 
the WTO as a multilateral trade institution.  The recently launched World Trade Report highlighted 
that despite the surge in prefer ential trade agreements, their launch has not necessarily led to an WT/GC/M/132 
Page 42  
 
  equally substantive expansion in trade flows. Instead , according to the report, they have contributed to 
the multiplicity of agreements which have eroded exporters’ influence over time. The multilateral 
track is therefore still the way trad e liberalisation should be pursued. 
 
14. Mexico 
 
 Thank you for your report and your tireless effo rts in connection with the Doha Round, more 
specifically for attempting to achieve consensus am ong Members on an initial package as part of the 
Doha Round Single Undertaking that could be hamme red out at the Eighth  Ministerial Conference.  
We note with great dismay that despite these effort s and the considerable investment made by most 
Members in the search for solutions to the present impasse in the Round, we still have no concrete 
outcome to this day.  We are now just weeks aw ay from the Ministerial Conference, and not only 
have these ten long years of negotia tion borne no fruit, not even in terms of the small package that we 
had undertaken to put together in respect of the least-developed countries in particular, but we also 
lack a clear sense of direction, and as you have said,  we are at an impasse in the negotiating track, and 
this could carry over to the other two tracks of  the WTO's work.  The new topics of commercial 
agency are now urgently claiming our attention,  as are several old new topics that are becoming 
increasingly important and which we need to begin di scussing seriously.  Besides, there are signs that 
protectionist pressures are threatening to gain streng th.  More than ever we need to find approaches 
that allow us to move forward, to shore up the mu ltilateral trading system and send a signal that we do 
have the will and commitment to preserve the primacy of the WTO as a forum for negotiation and the 
regulation of world trade in favour of the poorest countries, which are those most in need of the 
benefits of a predictable and stable multilateral trad ing system.  We cannot remain inactive.  We will 
need to give a clear account to the Ministers in December as to where we are and what we have or 
have not achieved with respect to the Round.  Moreove r, we must be able to put forward a clear plan 
as to where we are headed after the Ministerial and beyond.  Besides, we need to have a package for 
the LDCs by December, if possible one that comes cl osest to what we had originally envisaged.  We 
are therefore in agreement with you, that work must start as soon as possible on drawing up a clear 
and concrete two-track Work Programme – one track for the topics of the Doha Development 
Agenda, the other for matters not related to that Ag enda.  Both tracks will have  to function in parallel 
– the first under your chairmanship, the second unde r the guidance of the Chairman of the General 
Council.  We must also continue simultaneously to press ahead with our negotiating endeavours in 
those areas where we have made th e most headway.  Mexico is aware of the tremendous cost of our 
failure so far to complete the Doha Develo pment Round.  Mexico has always supported and 
participated proactively in the various processes aimed at producing an ambitious and balanced 
package in the Round.  Our goal of successfully  concluding the Round remains unchanged, as does 
our commitment to preserve the credibility of th e multilateral trading system.  Although our present 
situation is critical, we must not despair.  We have every confidence that common sense will prevail 
over narrow and short-term visions.  
15. Nepal 
 
Thank you for convening this meeting and re porting us on your tireless consultations in 
various configurations.  My dele gation would like to express our full solidarity with the statement by 
Bangladesh for the LDCs.  From your report, we understand that possibilities are still there and we 
hope that your tireless effort will take tangible shape in the forthcoming MC8, and we are ready to continue our work on any track for a positive outco me.  My delegation considers that this meeting on 
the eve of the summer break is an important one in the context of the DDA to  maintain the credibility 
of the multilateral trading system. Given the po litical will and commitment to the rule-based and 
non-discriminatory multilateral process, some substan tial deliverables is a must, and not beyond the 
reach of the membership, if we all are serious.  We  listened very carefully to all interventions which 
were made this morning and would like to recall that  the international community  gathered in Istanbul  
in 2010 for the LDC IV Conference pledged to al l development partners to support LDC issues  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 43 
 
 
  unconditionally. Development partne rs also have committed to suppor t us in different forums. Now 
the time has come to formalize the understanding.  As we are constantly urging the developed world 
that any approach of delaying or diverting our issu es in any package or track which is not attainable 
within the December time line, is unacceptable to us.  We simply cannot afford for it.  The deadline of 
the Millennium Development Goals and overarching  goals set at the Millennium Summit would be 
impossible to attain if further delayed.   Fina lly, my delegation is cautiously waiting for concrete 
deliverables at MC8, in line with helping to build the LDCs’ economies 
 
16. New Zealand 
 
Thank you for your report on your consultations since the last TNC meeting.  We support the 
approach you have outlined on refocusing efforts in  the period ahead.  This meeting is a useful 
opportunity to take stock of where we have got to, so  as to be clear about what we still have to do to 
prepare for MC8 when we get back to work in Geneva  in September.  One thing is very clear – this 
has been a period of enormous activity in expl oring whether there is a convergence that would 
produce an LDC-Plus package as part of the outputs for MC8 at the end of the year. There have been 
numerous consultations over the last several weeks in  which positions have been exchanged in detail.  
And while there may be no consensus in this r oom on the substance of the issues proposed for a 
package at this stage, there h as at least been a deeper understanding reached about positions of 
different players on those issues and the circumstance s and conditions – many of which clearly remain 
deeply contested – in which they would be ab le to take them forward. Undeniably, it is 
disappointing that we are unable today to confirm th at an LDC-Plus package can be agreed.  At the 
same time, we need to remind ourselves that this process was never expected to be straightforward or 
easy, for a range of reasons that became ever more apparent as discussions went on.   And that's why 
the need for a stocktake by the end of July w as called for in our earlier TNC discussions, as we 
needed to assure ourselves whether our efforts we re bearing fruit or whether we would need to 
recalibrate our efforts elsewhere, given the limited time available at MC8.  So what do we make of 
where we have got to?  At the broadest level, this confirms what we have known all along, that just as 
bringing the Round to a conclusion remains challenging , so too with a sub-set of issues.  That is 
difficult to get away from, despite paragraph 47 of D oha.   Now let's be clear about what this doesn't 
mean.  It doesn't mean that we now abandon any of the LDC or “plus” issues and objectives that have 
been under discussion.  These issues  will necessarily continue to be part of our ongoing work 
programme for the future.  They are all unfinished business.  But we cannot paper over the cracks and 
pretend that, based on what we know now, there is likely to be an agreement on a proposed package in 
December.  That does not mean that this situation could not change or evolve – the door needs to be 
left open for any delegation to co me forward with advice that their position has changed substantively 
and that this now opens up new possibilities for an ag reement that simply was not there previously.  
But the notion that we should continue going over the same ground in circumstances where this will 
take us backwards and not forwards should be resist ed.  We should not fall into the trap of equating 
meetings or activity with progress.  It will not only have a corrosive effect in terms of the issues under discussion, but it will also mean that we are unabl e to devote necessary time to other issues that are 
now demanding attention as MC8 approaches, par ticularly the issues of our DDA and non-DDA work 
programme post-MC8.   At this stage, its important  that we look beyond the differences on specific 
issues that divide us, to the objectives that unite us – and a crucially important issue we share here is 
our ongoing commitment and belief in the value of  the multilateral trading system and the WTO.  
Frustrating though it may be at times, the reality is th at it is only through this system that any of us 
will be able to advance the unfinished business of  the Doha Round and other emerging trade issues 
that demand multilateral attention.  In terms of the DDA, we’ve got to think carefully about how, 
knowing what we know  
now, we can move forward from where we are  now.  It is evident from the 
discussion today that Members are now thinking more laterally about how MC8 might be used not only to reaffirm the commitments to the MTS, but as pa rt of this to underline the crucial role of the 
WTO in supporting development and the interests of LDCs in particular.  Further discussions in this 
area could be taken up in the Member-driven MC8 preparatory process that the General Council Chair WT/GC/M/132 
Page 44  
 
  will be advancing after August.  At the same time, as we move ahead toward MC8, we need to avoid 
creating a further set of expectations that we will not be able to meet.  
17. Singapore 
 
As always, you have our gratitude for your effort s in guiding these negotiations.  We support 
the statement by Indonesia on behalf of ASEAN.   WTO Members have a good track record of 
continually finding ourselves at crucial crossroads.   In December, we will face yet another one.  This 
time, it will be crucial not just for the negotiating ag enda we started in 2001, but also for the strength 
of the multilateral trading system as a whole.  I wa nt to recall a request you first made of us some 
months ago – " this is the time, if ever there was one, to think and act systemically."  The time has 
come for us to evaluate and consider issues for the sake of the organisation.  We will return in 
September with but a few weeks to set up a Minist erial Conference that will underline the continuing 
relevance of the WTO – both in terms of what we can say and do on the DDA, and what we can deliver on non-DDA issues.  What the TNC has attempte d to do since the new year has been difficult 
but necessary.  It was necessary for us to try to see wh at we could achieve by Easter, and subsequently 
in a harvest package for December.  But it is now ju st as necessary to think of the larger picture and 
carefully consider our future work.  Therefore, we  strongly support your approach to shift our focus to 
building a non-DDA agenda, as well as to consider th e issues which we put on the "third track" in 
May.  We will need to create ti me for honest conversations about the system, which will set the stage 
for our Ministers to agree on the state of play and make the necessary decisions to set us on the path 
for 2012 and beyond.  When we consider post- MC8 issues in September, it should not be a 
negotiation, but an honest assessment of all the i ssues in our negotiating age nda, including those that 
were most intractable.   We must be realistic in assessing why the same dynamics kept leading us to 
impasse.  Before we can get to the "how" in moving forward, we need to have a collective 
understanding of the "whys" we could not move in  the past.  Asking "why" must not invoke finger-
pointing.  Instead, we should reflect on this shared dia gnosis with the interests of the system at heart.  
We must also devote equal bandwidth to rej uvenating non-DDA issues and strengthening the regular 
work of our institution.  These deliverables should become inputs to an overall MC8 outcome which 
provides us with a credible transition to our future  work in 2012.  We have, perhaps, depended too 
unfairly on you to navigate us through this comple x journey without taking ow nership of the problems 
which emerged along the way.  It is time for colle ctive responsibility to get us to an outcome which 
must only strengthen the multilateral trading system .  We have much to do, and Singapore will 
continue to support all efforts by the membership to complete these important tasks. 
 
18. South Africa 
 
At the last TNC we urged Members not to seek  any concessions and trade-offs for a package 
for the poorest countries. As we had warned, the di scussion on an LDC-Plus package has gotten us all 
into a spaghetti bowl of trade-offs and concessions  required by different Members that has little 
chance of being unraveled in the short time availabl e to us. Thus, we agree with others that have 
declared that this LDC-Plus package is not doable by December and that attempting to pursue this 
further would be an unproductive use of our time. In addition, the pursuit of an LDC-Plus package has 
been a distraction from the concer ns and interests of the LDCs.  The poorest developing countries, 
especially the LDCs, have waited too long for Memb ers to deliver on the promises made at the Hong 
Kong Ministerial Conference in December 2005, and the failure of the Round to conclude has not 
been due to their missteps.  A downpayment for deve lopment is just what the WTO needs to provide 
it with the credibility, to restore its legitimacy, and to build confidence among the majority of its 
Members and the world. The crucial question now is whether we have the political will to deliver a 
package to the LDCs by December.  However, if we cannot deliver an LDC-only package by 
December, let us not prolong the debate and raise th e expectations of the LDCs. Let us rather focus on 
how we can still save the credibility of the institu tion and focus on the needs and interests of the 
poorest developing countries at MC8. Let us discuss how we can at least make the WTO more  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 45 
 
 
  development-friendly at MC8.  At MC8 we will n eed to discuss how it is we have come to this 
juncture.  How is it that the world cannot even de liver on the promises made at Hong Kong in 2005 to 
deliver duty-free quota-free market access to LDCs a nd to remove the trade-distorting subsidies that 
destroy jobs in cotton farms in poor African Countries?  At MC8 we will need to discuss how it is that 
the Doha Development Agenda, the first Round that has sought at the outset to address the inequities 
in the trading system, cannot be concluded after ten years. We will need to discuss how it is that the 
first Round that has promised to create a fairer a nd more development-friendly WTO has made almost 
no progress for more than three years now.  It is only with some deep reflection among Members and the public at large that we can hope to begin to understand the underlying causes of the current 
impasse in the Doha Round. As we stated at the last TNC,  South Africa remains committed to 
concluding the Doha Round on its deve lopment mandate. This is our historic mission and we have no 
other choice.  
19. Tanzania 
 
I would like to thank you, Director-General, fo r your report on the cons ultations you have had 
and the next steps you have outlined regarding the DDA.  It speaks of the tremendous efforts which 
you have made in recent weeks towards deliverables for MC8 in December this year.  Let me remind 
Members that, today it is almost six years since our Ministers made important decisions in Hong 
Kong which are still relevant with regard to the DD A ten years hence. The frustrations we have to 
endure due to the slow, or lack of, progress in the implementation of Ministerial decisions is, to say 
the least, unbearable. We have collectively failed to translate into practice many of the decisions and 
promises that have already been made pertaining to the development needs of LDCs.  In the midst of 
the foregoing scenario, we are now confronted with yet another MC8, this time urging for early harvesting of LDC issues in line with what was reac hed by LDC Trade  Ministers when they met and 
adopted the Dar-es-Salaam Declaration in 2009. While  this is a very welcome move, we are not so 
sure whether the LDC package is going to be one of the deliverables in December.  In view of the fast 
evolving dynamics around the LDC package for MC8 and the events of the recent past, they do not 
show any positive translation on the ground.  The LDC package that was seen as a priority is now 
running parallel with the so called "plus” issues.  This can be confirmed from the positions of various 
delegations regarding MC8.  Let me emphasize that, whatever issues are going to be part of a 
"deliverables" package, we should not in any way lose focus on delivering on the LDC issues first, as 
we started to demand their early harvest a long tim e earlier.  Members have a duty, a responsibility 
and a moral obligation not to disappoint us, and theref ore to make sure that the LDC issues are early 
harvested first before any other "plus” issues.  Fina lly, I want to reiterate my delegation's support for 
the positions of the LDC Group, the African Group and the ACP Group, and its endorsement of the 
statements which the coordinators of these Groups  have made.  My delegation remains ready to 
cooperate and engage c onstructively with the rest of th e membership towards the successful 
conclusion of MC8 and the subsequent Doha Round. 
 
20. Turkey 
 
We would like to express our thanks for the sober report you provided on the status of the 
discussions on the mini-package and the DDA. We appr eciate your tireless efforts.  Last week marked 
a significant period for the WTO. The Aid for Trad e review was completed successfully. Participation 
and interest from many countries and other interna tional organizations has proved the significance of 
this subject.  Furthermore, the World Trade Re port was announced. The Report indicated that world 
trade increased by 22 per cent compared to the previ ous year in nominal terms. This is a significant 
turn for world trade following the economic crisis.  Such developments are very pleasing. It provides 
also a sign that the environment has been improving for multilateral trade. However, when it comes to 
the DDA negotiations, we see that the encouraging signs diminish.  Foremost, the DDA contains the right agenda covering many issues important to de veloping-country Members. The needs and realities 
of world trade have to be sealed through a Singl e Undertaking. Only completing the DDA will allow WT/GC/M/132 
Page 46  
 
  us to move into future issues. Nevertheless, it is  understood this morning that the time has not been 
ripe yet. We have to look at the situation more clos ely and more frankly.  In not being able to deliver 
the LDC package, we believe that we lost the hi gh moral ground. We must listen and dwell carefully 
on the statement by Bangladesh on behalf of the LD C Group. As the host of the LDC IV Conference, 
we truly are committed to the cause of LDCs. Now, without being emotional, we should find a way in 
a realistic manner to address the question as was formulated by many of my colleagues as to how we 
are going to accommodate the justified expectations of LDCs and the development issues.  MC8 is 
approaching fast. We have only limited and very valuable time following the summer break. 
Concerning MC8, the two-track approach is viable  and we support this approach. We can work 
simultaneously on both of the tracks. The TPR  appraisal monitoring accession or proposals to 
improve efficiency of the WTO can be taken aboa rd. These and any other ideas need to be looked at 
closely, and must be formulated accordingly.  We must put our collective en ergy and mind into this 
process. While we do not need to produce a "big bang" out of every Ministerial Conference, it is 
essential that we put our minds into it and try to make  the best use of it.  The Conference is important 
at least to examine such questions and shape our ag enda post-MC8. For this purpose, we must prepare 
the ground for Ministers and, if deemed necessary, we should get additional political mandates for the 
DDA and for the years beyond 2011.  These are very important questions and require very careful 
attention.   
_______________ 
  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 47 
 
 
  ANNEX II 
Statement by China at the informal meeting 
of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
on 31 May 2011 
 
 
At the request of the delegation, the statemen t by China at the above-mentioned meeting is 
included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting.   
 We appreciate your assessment of the current stat e of play and your suggestions for the way 
forward based on the discussions in various form ats since the last informal TNC meeting on 29
 April.  
After one month’s serious reflection and active e ngagement among Members since the circulation of 
the Easter reports, including the Ministerial meeting of  the APEC and that in Paris, it is getting clear 
that the window of opportunity in completing the Single Undertaking in 2011 is almost closed. Given 
how much time, energy and resources we have devot ed over the past ten years, and how little remains 
to be done, it is very disappointing that we cannot achieve the goal this year. However, as we have 
expressed many times, China never gives up, and our commitment stands firm. At the same time, we 
feel encouraged that nobody has said to give up.  With  this shared spirit, I believe we will be able to 
agree on a modified work program and carry it through to success.  With the Eighth Ministerial Conference coming up in December, it is desirable to  consider the following elements in planning the 
next steps, based on the current achievement.  Firs t, Doha is a comprehensive package from which 
each of us could benefit. The end goal of the DDA  as a Single Undertaking must be upheld. What’s 
on the table is the result of painstaking give-and- takes, and such achievement should not be “gone 
with the wind”.  Second, for the sake of the credib ility of the multilateral trading system, MC8 needs 
to deliver some tangible outcomes on Doha. Ta king advantage of Paragraph 47 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration, which provides the ma ndate for early agreement and implementation, 
Members should strive for an early harvest on a sm all package by December, and this small package 
will be a part of and a stepping stone for the final Single Undertaking. Third, in keeping with the development mandate, priority shou ld be given to issues closely re lated to the concerns of LDCs. 
China is open to discussion as to what subjects shoul d be included, but in order to secure the chance 
of success, Members should avoid putting into the small package those issues that are technically 
premature and politically sensitive. We’d better make  it clear up front what is supposed to be an 
LDC-Plus should not end up destroying deliverables for LDCs.  Finally, we encourage Members to 
listen to LDCs and other developm ent groups as to their needs.  For its own part, China will keep 
playing its constructive role through the whole pro cess.  To conclude, China would like to support the 
statements by the G20, the LDCs and the African Group. 
 
_______________ 
 WT/GC/M/132 
Page 48  
 
  ANNEX III 
Statement by China at the informal meeting 
of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
on 22 June 2011 
 
 
At the request of the delegation, the statemen t by China at the above-mentioned meeting is 
included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
 
 
 My delegation appreciates your report on the st atus quo and your suggestions for the next 
steps of the Doha negotiations. Let me take this opportunity to share with you and other Members 
some basic thinking of China.  It is disappointing that we are not able to conclude the Doha Round 
within this year. However, the Eighth Ministeria l Conference is already set for December. If no 
tangible result comes out of MC8 on the Doha front , it will cause great damage to the multilateral 
trading system. Thus, Members have jointly agreed to shift their focus to an early harvest, since 
coming back from Big Sky and Paris.  So what shoul d be included in the early harvest? And what are 
the issues that can be delivered by December?  Some argue that the world economic map has changed 
since the launch of the Doha Round and the negotiations should reflect the 21st century realities. It is 
up to each Member to make its own judgment on th is argument. As far as China is concerned, 
whatever changes have taken place, the developm ent mandate has never changed, especially the 
poverty-reduction objective of the LDCs. So no matte r what issues we talk about, be it of the 21st or 
22nd century, the starting point should always be getting the poorest out of poverty. The WTO should 
always address the concerns and difficulties of the LDCs  with priority and urgency.  Along this line, 
we fully support the statement by the LDCs, the G2 0, the G90 and the African Group. Our opinion is 
that we should temporarily put each other’s self-inter est aside and work out a smaller package for the 
LDCs. China is certainly open to discussions of any issue in the Single Undertaking at any time, as 
has always been the case for the p ast ten years. However, the rule of thumb is that the “plus” should 
facilitate rather than frustrate the LDC package. Th e more issues we put in, the less likely it will be 
for the package to succeed. So th e basic question is whether it is appropriate to seek balance or 
linkage for the LDC package – it’s obvious that an y linkage, balancing or compensation prerequisite 
on the LDCs could end up killing the LDC package and therefore should be avoided.  China is a 
developing country with 150 million people living on less than one dollar per day. Despite itself 
facing the same formidable development challe nges, to value the Hong Kong mandate, China has 
already started to provide duty-free quota-free mark et access for products originating from the LDCs. 
As a result, China has become the world largest export destination for the LDCs since 2008, 
absorbing roughly 23 per cent of their total expor ts. Between 2000 and 2009, China’s imports from 
the LDCs increased 24 per cent annually. Starting from July 2010, China began to provide DFQF 
treatment to LDCs for 4,762 tariff lines, which account ed for 60 per cent in terms of product coverage 
and 98.2 per cent in terms of LDCs’ export value to China.  In orde r to deliver the December package, 
we are willing to make our best efforts to furt her increase DFQF coverage for LDC products from the 
current level to 95 per cent.  We appeal to all majo r players, especially the developed ones, to do their 
part in honoring the Hong Kong mandate to deliver the LDC package.  Before ending, I must also 
emphasize that any steps we are going to take should serve as a part, instead of a replacement, of the 
Single Undertaking. It is imperative that Mini sters at MC8 make a clear indication that WTO 
Members will never give up the whole developm ent agenda. Taking it from there, Members could 
build on the December deliverab les and keep engaging towards the full conclusion of the Round.  
Time is not on our side. We must intensify our work so as to make MC8 meaningful. Please be 
assured that China will continue to make constructive contributi ons to this end. 
 
_______________  WT/GC/M/132 
 Page 49 
 
 
  ANNEX IV 
Statements by delegations at the meeting of the 
Third Global Review of Aid for Trade 
on 19 July 2011 
 
 
 At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the above-mentioned meeting are included below as part of th e Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
  1. Bangladesh for the LDC Group 
  
At the outset, I would like to than k the Director General and the Secretariat for organising this 
Third Global Review of Aid for Trade. As rega rds the way forward, the LDC Group would like to 
suggest the following.  In terms of process:  First,  we recommend continued work on reporting in the 
Committee on Trade and Development on the status of implementation of the AFT Work Programme 
for the biennium 2010-2011. We also suggest in itiating discussions on the development of a new 
work programme for 2012-2013 leading up to the next Global Review.  These discussions should focus on the nature of the document to be produced for the next review exercise. We also stress the 
need for adhering to the principles of inclusiv eness and transparency in drawing up a new work 
programme.  Second, we appreciate the special at tention that has been given to LDCs in the 
preparation of the Third Global Review, particularly  in the study entitled "Aid for Trade and LDCs:  
Starting to show results". We stress that similar attention should be given to the LDCs in the new 
work programme for the next biennium. In this co ntext, we underline the importance of strengthening 
national stakeholder consultations in  the beneficiary or recipient countries, with particular attention 
given to capacity building of the local private sect or.  Third, we emphasize the need for WTO to 
continue to play its role as facilitator in implementi ng the AFT initiative.  In the area of substance, we 
recommend that:  First, AFT programmes should take  a holistic approach to addressing the inherent 
and structural supply-side constraints in LDCs in accordance with national priorities, with particular 
attention to the dearth of trade-related infrast ructure, weak regulatory capacity and poor human 
capital. The often misplaced focus on developing ab sorptive capacity should be  directed at building 
durable local capacity with a view to sustaining th e long-term impacts of AFT initiatives.  Second, the 
AFT initiative should be embedded in the Paris Princi ples on Aid Effectiveness with a view to further 
enhancing ownership by national stakeholders, and alignment with the needs and priorities of the 
beneficiary or recipient countries, particularly LDCs. There have been disparate experiences in 
various national contexts in LDCs, which need to be streamlined in line with the Istanbul Programme 
of Action for LDCs.  The lessons learned from speci fic cast studies can provide useful pointers in the 
right direction.  Third, there is a need for su stained engagement and dialogue among the various 
players, involving the beneficiary countries and development partners, including the international 
financial institutions and multilateral developmen t banks, to ensure effective monitoring and 
evaluation of AFT programmes. This should factor  in concrete and measurable indicators with 
demonstrable cause and effect relationship and evidence-based results. The methodologies developed 
for assessing the quality and impact of AFT need to be  evolving, flexible, adaptable and interactive, 
without falling into the trap of a uniform, benchmarking exercise.  
 
Fourth, there is a need to su stain the flow of resources for the AFT initiative to consolidate 
the results and gains made so far.  Such resources should be additiona l and predictable, and should not 
be conflated with traditional and ongoing flow of resources by way of repackaging in the name of 
AFT. The AFT initiative must not end up in an exerci se in figure-crunching, but rather be geared at 
real-time trade capacity building to help recipient c ountries, particularly LDCs, to integrate into the 
multilateral trading system. There is also a need  to develop easy disbursement procedures and 
obligations, which have r eceived limited attention so far.  Fi fth, the ongoing wo rk on building a WT/GC/M/132 
Page 50  
 
  dynamic and comprehensive knowledge network needs to be pursued to highlight, among others, the 
best practices and lessons learned on what works and what does not. The review process has helped generate a wealth of evidence-based information.  It would be critical to compile and analyse the information with a view to making succinct polic y recommendations aimed at various target groups, 
including policy makers and private sector stakehol ders. In this context, cross-regional dialogue and 
knowledge sharing would help gene rate result-oriented and customized initiatives, especially in 
paving the way for regional trade and economic inte gration.  And lastly, the growing focus on 
South-South cooperation should be maximized through a demand-driven process and through 
developing a monitoring mechanism which factors in the unique characteristics of such cooperation. 
We would like to stress that South-South cooperation n eeds to be approached in its right perspective, 
and be seen as complementary to and not as a subs titute for North-South cooperation and triangular 
partnerships.  The LDCs have demonstrated their commitment to deliver on their share of contribution 
to making the AFT initiative bear fruit.  We urge th e international community to give substance and 
meaning to these efforts by delivering on an ear ly-harvest package for LDCs under the Doha 
Development Agenda during the Ministerial Conference in December 2011.   
 
2. El Salvador 
 
 I should like to take this opportunity to thank you, your team at the WTO Secretariat and the 
OECD Secretariat for the holding of this meeting.   It has demonstrated beyond doubt that the 
Initiative has germinated, and we have  been able to observe this over these two days of deliberations.  
Much still remains to be done, and we are convinced  that the success of th e cooperation provided by 
the donor community and funding agencies depends on what we are able to achieve at the national 
level through long-term programmes aimed at helping us  integrate effectively into global trade flows.  
We consider initiatives of this kind to be not ju st necessary but indispensable in complementing our 
trade policies in a responsible and sustainable manne r and in contributing to the development of an 
urgent additional agenda for taking advantage of trade agreements.  Other colleagues have raised 
topics such as good governance, transparency, account ability, and results-based management.  Yet 
there are other dimensions on which the AFT initia tive also needs to focus,  such as substantially 
raising low-economic profitability, market failu res, failures of governance and unfavourable 
geographical conditions.  New components of cooperation such as political and diplomatic 
endeavours should also be taken into account.  We need to continue looking into how to deliver AFT 
effectively and to have suitable measurement tools to avoid squandering valuable resources, which are 
unquestionably scarce these days.  I am sure that Mini sters will be closely examining this topic at the 
next Ministerial Conference.  We invite you to pur sue this initiative, which we believe will help us 
integrate into world trade flows.  
__________