RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/103 
10 October 2006 
 (06-4850) 
General Council 
27-28 July 2006  
 
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 27-28 July 2006  
 
Chairman:  Mr Eirik Glenne (Norway) 
 
Subjects discussed : Page  
1. Report by the Chairman of th e Trade Negotiati ons Committee ..........................................2  
2. Outstanding implementation issues u nder paragraph 12(b) of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration – Review of progress and any appropriate action as 
provided for in paragraph 39 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.........................20  
3. Accession of Tonga – Extension of time-limit for acceptance of protocol of accession...................................................................................................................... .............22
 
4. Follow-up to the 1 August 2004 General Council Decision and the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration on the Doha Work Programme – Statement by the Director-General on the Development Assistance Aspects of Cotton ................................22
 
5. Enhanced Integrated Framework – Statement by the Chairman of the Integrated Framework Task Force .......................................................................................24
 
6. Aid for Trade.................................................................................................................. .........27  
(a) Report of the Task Force established pur suant to Paragraph 57 of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration ........................................................................................................ .....27  
(b) Statement by the Di rector-General ...........................................................................................27  
7. Committee on Agriculture - Implementati on-related issues - Report to the 
General Council ................................................................................................................ ......37  
8. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the 
Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade and Development ......................................38  
9. Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment .................................................39  
(a) Report by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development.................................................................................................................... .........39
 
(b) Reports by chairpersons of other WTO bodies to whom Special and Differential 
treatment proposals ha ve been referred ....................................................................................39  
10. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 
1994 – Communications from Honduras and Guatemala – Statement by the 
Chairman....................................................................................................................... ..........44  WT/GC/M/103 
Page 2  
 
11.
 Rules of Origin – Harmonization Work Programme – Statement by the 
Chairman....................................................................................................................... ..........49  
12. Committee on Budget, Finance and Admini stration – Report of the Committee 
on its meeting of June 2006 .................................................................................................... 53 
13. Waivers under Article IX of  the WTO Agreement..............................................................54  
(a) Introduction of Harmonized system 1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff 
concessions – Requests for extensions of  waivers - Argentina and Panama ............................54  
(b) Senegal – Customs Valuation Agreement – Request for extension of waiver..........................54  
(c) European Communities – Autonomous preferen tial treatment to the countries of the 
Western Balkans – Request for Extension of Waiver...............................................................55  
(d) Review of Waivers Pursuant to Artic le IX:4 of the WTO Agreement .....................................55  
(i) LDCs – Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Ag reement with respect to pharmaceutical 
products, granted on 8 July 2002 until 1 January 2016 ...........................................................55  
(ii) Preferential tariff treatment for least-d eveloped countries, granted on 15 June 1999 
until 30 June 2009............................................................................................................. ........55  
(iii) Kimberley process certification scheme fo r rough diamonds, granted on 15 May 2003 
until 31 December 2006......................................................................................................... ...55 
(iv) Albania – Implementation of specific concessions, granted on 26 May 2005 until 
1 January 2009 ................................................................................................................. ........55  
14. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO – Report of the Joint Advisory 
Group on its Thirty-Ninth Session ........................................................................................56  
15. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Lao PDR ..................................59  
16. Chairmanship of the Counc il for Trade in Services ............................................................60  
ANNEX  61 
 
1. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
1. The Chairman  invited the Director-General, as Chairman of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee, to report on the TNC's activities since his last report to the Council. 
2. The Director-General, Chairman of  the Trade Negotiations Committee , said that since the last 
meeting of the General Council, the TNC had held one formal meeting on 1 July, and four informal 
meetings on 30 May, 28 and 30 June and 24 July.  His focus at the present meeting would be very 
much on the events of the past few days.  Following a period of rather intensive activity at the end of 
June, at the 1 July formal TNC meeting he had been requested to conduct intensive and wide-ranging 
consultations with the aim of facilitating the urgent  adoption of modalities in agriculture and NAMA.  
He had also been asked to report as soon as possible and, as he had said at the time, his aim in these 
consultations would be to facilitate and catal yze agreement among Members, who continued to 
remain the main actors of the process.  He had star ted consultations with members of the G6 and had 
progressively widened the circle of contacts to individual delegations a nd groups.  He had also 
attended the outreach session at the G8 Summit in St . Petersburg, where a number of Heads of State 
and Government had been present, and had told them they needed to revise thei r instructions to their 
delegations in Geneva and to give them more flex ibility in two ways – first, that they improve the 
numbers on the table and second, that they agree to ad just what they were ready to pay with what they 
could reasonably expect for that price.  During this  meeting there had been some encouraging signals 
of additional flexibility at this highest political level.  However, these flexibilities had failed to  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 3 
 
 
materialize in significant changes in the negotiators ' positions, and this was why, at the informal TNC 
meeting on 24 July, he had had to re port bad news – that the gaps remained too wide and the situation 
had become very serious.  The full text of his statement at that meeting was available in JOB(06)/231.  In that statement, he had stressed that without the modalities in Agriculture and NAMA, it was clear 
that it would not be possible to finish the Round at  the end of 2006.  The time necessary to prepare 
and finalize the schedules of concessions was just not there, and too many outstanding issues 
remained to be addressed.  The timing had always b een very tight, but the c ontinuing blockage on a 
few points meant that Members had simply run out of  time for the rest.  Faced with this persistent 
impasse, he had recommended that the only course of action available was to suspend the negotiations 
across the Round as a whole to enable the serious reflec tion by participants that was clearly necessary.  
He had not proposed any new deadlines nor any date for resumption of activity in the Negotiating 
Groups, nor did he think this was possible at the pr esent time.  This could only come when conditions 
existed to permit renewed progress, and this meant changes in entrenched positions.  The ball was 
clearly in the court of the Members. 
3. Suspending the negotiations meant that the progr ess made to date on the various elements of 
the negotiating agenda had been put on hold, pe nding the resumption of the negotiations when the 
negotiating environment was right.  Significant progress had been made in all areas of the negotiations, which could be seen from the written reports  of the state of play in their respective areas 
which the Chairs of the various negotiating groups  had recently circulated, and Members now had to 
ensure that this progress did not unravel.  At the TNC meeting on 24 July, at which a number of Ministers had been present, his recommendation had b een accepted.  It had been accepted with regret, 
but it had been accepted.  There had been many expressions of disappointment that negotiators had 
failed to find the necessary convergence, but delega tions had also reaffirmed the reasons the Round 
was important for growth and development, and many Members had also stressed the sort of systemic 
importance of the WTO and the contribution these negotiations could make to strengthening the 
multilateral system as a whole.  From the discussion on 24 July, as well as from the various 
discussions he had had since then, it was clear that no one wanted to give up on the collective effort in 
Geneva.  His sense was that there remained widespre ad determination – despite this setback, deadlock 
and crisis – to try to bring the Round to a successf ul conclusion.  How Members would do that could 
only appear after a bit of hard thinking and deep re flection, which was why this time out was, in his 
view, necessary. 
4. It was time for quiet thinking as opposed to me gaphone diplomacy, which is why he urged all 
Members to avoid the well-known blame game and in stead to use this time for serious and sober 
reflection on what was at stake.  Everyone knew that what was on the table was already quite 
important, and the package risked being lost.  For his part, he would pursue his contacts, as he had 
done in recent days.  He would remain available to  all, as would the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups, 
for any contacts Member might wish to have with hi m or them.  His priority would remain to continue 
to defend the integrity of the WTO system, which had served Members quite well in the past decades, 
and to continue to assist the membership to reach agreement.  In concluding, he said Members could 
count on him to do everything he could to keep up the pressure for the political movement that would 
permit a resumption of the negotiations.  That resump tion would not come with a little bit of time, or a 
little bit of this and a little bit of that.  It would come only in the right conditions after some political 
decisions had been taken.  He believed this was po ssible, but was not sure it would happen.  Members 
had to keep on trying, pr obably quietly during some time, and this  was what he would try to assist.  
He hoped that this time of reflection would be fruitful , so that at the end of this period, refreshed, 
revamped, re-thought positions on the few, but very im portant, issues that remained at stake, could be 
possible. 
5. All representatives who spoke thanked the Dire ctor-General for his tireless efforts as TNC 
Chair and for his report, and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their dedicated work. WT/GC/M/103 
Page 4  
 
6. The representative of Benin
, on behalf of the African Group , said it was with some bitterness 
that these countries had had to acknowledge over the past 72 hours that the negotiations were 
suspended because there had been no movement or fl exibility on the part of certain leading actors in 
international trade.  The developing countries and LDCs were deeply disappointed, and very much 
regretted that Members had reached this deadlock.  The consequences of this setback were extremely 
serious – indeed, for the economies and populations of the African Group, they were immeasurable.  
They would be felt on the economic, financial and soci al fronts.  For approximately five years, the 
populations of the poor and vulnerable countries had done  their utmost in terms of commitment to the 
Round and covering the financial costs of their par ticipation in the different negotiating activities.  
Their expectations as to the potential contribution of the Round to developm ent were considerable, 
and still were, despite this new blow that had been dealt them – as if to say that their countries should 
not have a voice in the matter.  This was why the African Group was still unable to comprehend why 
the negotiating process should have come to a halt.  Indeed, they were deeply shocked.  It was the 
developing and the least-developed countries among the membership who would suffer the most from a prolongation of the Doha Round, and who would con tinue to suffer the drastic consequence of the 
mess that would be created by an indefinite suspension of the Round. 
7. A few specific examples of their expectations  and the subjects of concern to the African 
Group – which they urged Members to address in  conformity with the specific commitments 
undertaken in Hong Kong – were th e following:  the consequences of the pursuit by certain developed 
countries of policies and practices involving high le vels of domestic support and subsidization for 
their farmers;  the disastrous effects of the con tinued granting by certain developed-country Members 
of export subsidies and domestic support for cotton;  the serious consequences of the failure of the 
negotiations for the operationalization of the decision to grant duty- and quota-free access for 
products from LDCs;  the setbacks for developing count ries, and in particular LDCs, inherent in the 
failure to adopt appropriate recommendations on  Aid for Trade in keeping with the mandate 
established at Hong Kong and, above all, the failure to implement, effectively and immediately, the 
provisions and arrangements made in that connection. 
8. The representative of Costa Rica
, speaking on a point of order , said that his delegation had 
recently sent a note to the representative of Benin requ esting that the latter not speak on behalf of all 
developing countries when speaking as coordinator of the African Group.  Costa Rica wished to request that no delegation speak on behalf of othe r delegations unless they had been given a mandate 
to do so.  It was his understanding that Benin's inte rvention under this Agenda item was on behalf of 
the African Group.  A similar situation had arisen  at the informal TNC meeting on 24 July, where 
delegations had spoken on behalf  of developing countries as a group.  Costa Rica requested that 
delegations representing different gr oups of countries as coordinators  speak only on behalf of those 
countries that had given them the mandate to do so, and that they not treat developing countries as a block with uniform positions, because this was not th e case.  He was making this request with all due 
respect for the positions of the African Group. 
9. The representative of Peru
, responding to the point of order raised by Costa Rica , said his 
delegation believed that the represen tative of Benin had been explicit in pointing out that he was 
speaking on behalf of the African Group only.  The fact that Benin's statement had had implications 
for other developing countries was quite legitimate , and his delegation accordingly proposed that 
Benin be allowed to contin ue with its statement. 
10. The representative of Benin , responding to the point of order raised by Costa Rica , said his 
delegation regretted that developi ng countries were tearing themselves apart because of terminology.  
His delegation was very sorry at this situation.  He had not so far seen any developed countries in 
Africa, and all African countries were in fact developing countries.   
11. The representative of Benin , then continuing with his statement, said the African Group 
expected the Doha Round negotiations to resume after the summer break, and expressly requested that  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 5 
 
 
they should resume, so that the concerns raised by  the developing-country Memb ers, and in particular, 
the LDCs, could be further examined and dealt w ith appropriately.  The African Group wished to 
stress, in this connection, that the consultation process that would be initiated when the negotiations 
resumed had to bring together all of the different WTO configurations, and not only a restricted group 
of Members.  The negotiating process could not be taken hostage by a handful of Members.  
Similarly, all decisions, whether on matters of proce dure or substance, would have to be taken on the 
basis of the principle of consensu s that had been accepted by all.  The African Group therefore asked 
to be closely associated with ever y phase of the negotiations when wo rk resumed.  Indeed, Africa was 
the only continent that was not represented in the G6.  The consultations would have to be truly 
inclusive, conducted in a spirit that would enable  Members to seek solutions to the real problems 
facing them, and guided by a new set of conditions.  The African Group also called for the resumption 
of the negotiations in September on the basis of th e texts submitted by Members and the reports by 
the Chairs of the different negotiating bodies, in particular as regards agriculture and NAMA, for 
which the African Group had sought from the outset  to establish modalities in  accordance with the 
pre-established timetable.  The African Group remain ed committed to this process and wished to see 
it continue in a harmonious spirit, with due consider ation for the interests and concerns of the weakest 
and most vulnerable Members. 
12. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that at the present meeting, 
Members would be taking a decision of importance to  the organization.  The suspension of the Doha 
Round negotiations, given the Round's unprecedented nature, at least in the WTO framework, placed a responsibility on all to establish a precedent for the fu ture.  For this reason, the form and parameters 
to be determined for the suspension had to be car efully weighed.  However, before dealing with 
questions of form, his delegation wished to make  an observation about what was being referred to 
throughout the world, and certainly in the interna tional press, as the "collapse of the Doha Round".  
He asked what it was that had collapsed.  In his delegation's view, what had collapsed was the mini-
Ministerial process, in all of its attempted configur ations, including the so-called G6 process and the 
so-called G5 process.  The attempt to divide up the single undertaking and to give priority to certain 
aspects of the negotiations had also failed.  Th is was confirmed by the process of intensive 
consultations conducted by the Director-General unde r the TNC's mandate, whic h had concluded that 
day.  Without dwelling on this question of transp arency, his delegation wished merely to make one 
remark.  When Members took the form al decision, what would remain as  an official record of what 
had been achieved to date would be the documents by the Chairmen of the negotiating groups, which 
were a product – albeit with many inherent flaws – of a genuine bottom-up approach.  In Venezuela's 
view, that process had not collapsed, but had achie ved results, and would enable Members to make 
progress if the negotiations were resumed.  When the negotiations were resumed, that would be 
Members' necessary starting point.  Regarding the form of the decision Members were to take, a number of aspects had to be defined.  In particul ar, it had to b defined what was meant by "resumption 
of the negotiations when the negotiating environment is  right".  He asked who would decide when this 
had been achieved, and what the trigger for resumptio n would be.  He said that for the sake of brevity 
and in keeping with the call for inclusiveness, he would explain how Venezuela saw these aspects.  As 
the decision to suspend the negotiations was to be taken by the General Council, it should also be the 
Council, or a body of high authority, which took the decision to resume.  His delegation asked that this point be clearly reflected in the language of the decision to be taken.  It was particularly important 
for his delegation that this suspension not entail any change in the negotiating mandate.  Venezuela 
would not consider this to constitute the "right  negotiating environment".  Lastly, his delegation 
wished to be informed in good time of the exact wo rding of the language that was agreed, given the 
importance of the precedent that would be established.   
13. The representative of Switzerland
 said Members had reached a deadlock and would clearly 
not be able to stick to the deadlines agreed in Hong Kong, which meant they would have to 
thoroughly review the timetable of the negotiations .  It was also essential that once the dust had 
settled, Members reflected on the modalities for pur suing the WTO's work and on the conditions for 
overcoming this crisis.  In so doing, they had to avoi d two pitfalls:  First, they could not give in to WT/GC/M/103 
Page 6  
 
fatalism.  The WTO was very much alive.  It rested on a considerable "acquis", which Members had to preserve.  Negotiating rounds were extraordinar y undertakings which had their ups and downs.  
While they were necessary to build  on this "acquis" and to adapt to the evolution of the world 
economy, the setbacks these rounds might suffer di d not call into question the multilateral system 
itself.  In fact, the past five y ears of negotiations had taught Members a lot.  They had explored new 
areas, brought to light a number of constraints and id entified opportunities.  This work had not been 
lost – it would be of use to Members in the futu re.  The second trap Members had to avoid was the 
temptation to rush matters.  By that he meant the temptation to engage in mi sguided activism which in 
the long run could only be harmful to the organi zation and to the interests of its Members.  WTO 
activities had to be redirected towards what the organization did best, namely, the pragmatic and 
progressive promotion of openness to trade through le gally-binding agreements.  The WTO's role in 
economic development needed to be rethought in the light of this need to refocus on areas in which 
the trade system had excelled.  In short, Members ur gently needed to take the time to reflect, to see 
what lessons they could draw from recent developm ents, and to re-examine, without any taboos, the 
strengths and weaknesses of the system.  Only by e ngaging in in-depth discussions would they be able 
to do what it took to revive the negotiating process. 
14. The representative of Brazil
1 said his delegation took note of the Director-General's 
recommendation to suspend the negotiations across the Round as a whole.  Brazil lamented that this 
had become unavoidable, but it was the only one possible under the circumstances.  This was a sad 
moment for the WTO.  His delegation was left w ith a sense of loss for the missed opportunities for 
trade reform and liberalization.  Members now had to overcome their perplexity and prepare for the 
eventual resumption of the negotiations. Brazil c ounted on the energy, determination and sense of 
fairness of the Director-General to help set th e process in motion again.  However, the main 
responsibility lay with the Members.  He wished to  share some thoughts on the road ahead.  First, on 
timing, Members had to aim at resu ming negotiations in the short rather than the long run.  Second, 
they had to preserve the "acquis" of the negotiatio ns.  They had to build up the political impetus to 
fully implement the Doha mandate, the July Fr amework and the Hong Kong Declaration, which 
remained the basis for Members' negotiating effort .  Bringing down the negotiating objectives to 
match the level of political commitment that had led Members to the present state of affairs was not an option.  Any deceptive "easy way out" at the expense of the developing countries would not be 
acceptable to Brazil.  In addition to the mandate, Me mbers had to preserve what was on the table.  A 
considerable amount of technical and political work  was reflected in negotiating proposals.  They 
were the only sound basis for future negotiations.  Brazil expected that the Director-General would 
continue to hold consultations and report to the Ge neral Council on a regular ba sis.  For Brazil's part, 
it would also be looking at ways to move the pro cess forward, in consultation with its negotiating 
partners.  As the G20 had stated in its communiqué on 24 July, it would be prepared to re-engage in 
the negotiations at any moment. 
15. The representative of Cuba
 deeply deplored the fact that it had not been possi ble to reach an 
agreement and that the Director-General had propo sed to suspend the entire negotiating process.  This 
was to be expected, given the lack of political will on the part of the developed countries, particularly 
the United States, to take historic decisions that would correct the injustices and structural inequalities 
of a trading system that benefited only the wealthy countries – a trading system in which developing countries, with almost four-fifths of the world's population, accounted for only a third of international 
trade.  Once again, the narrow and purely commercial  national interests of the major industrialized 
countries, and their selfishness and unbridled ambi tion, had prevailed over humanism, solidarity, 
cooperation, fairness and mutual benefit.  Althou gh the reduction of domest ic and export subsidies 
was one of the most long-standing demands of the developing countries – given that a mere 
21 developed countries accounted for US$250 milli on in expenditure, or five-sixths of the 
US$300 million spent on such subsidies by all countries – this would not by itself guarantee a 
                                                     
 
1 The delegation of Brazil requested that its statement at the informal meeting of the TNC on 24 July be 
included in the records of the present meeting.  The stat ement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 7 
 
 
development focus leading to the su ccess of this Round.  Development, which stood at the centre of 
Members' mandate to correct inequities in the Uruguay Round agreements, was practically absent 
from this process.  As stated in the report by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on 
Trade and Development, of the 16 outstanding  Agreement–specific proposals relating to S&D 
treatment, progress had been made on only six, and much more needed to be done to complete the 
work.  There were substantial divergences on the re maining ten.  The developed countries who spoke 
of their concern for development were the same countries who opposed the proposals on S&D 
treatment that many developing countries had put forward.  These developed countries did not even 
agree with the LDCs on a simple procedural ques tion, namely, that the means for implementing the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Decision on duty- and quota-free market access for products from the poorest 
and most backward countries of the world should be considered in the special session of the CTD. 
16. However, Cuba was not disheartened.  This was not the end of the story, or of the negotiating 
mandate under the DDA and the Hong Kong Declaration.   The negotiations might be suspended, but 
the Doha mandate remained intact.  Cuba would not accept its replacement, modification, 
segmentation or selective and self-serving interp retation, as some might wish.  The Doha 
Development Agenda was not a menu of options to be selected from at one's convenience.  It was a 
single undertaking, as Members had agreed, and all of its components were indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.  Members should no t be deceived by siren songs that were no more 
than a reflection of the old imperial-style carrot a nd stick approach.  Obviously, the format of small-
group meetings was also in crisis and had failed.  Th e process had to be return ed to where it belonged 
– to the bodies in which all Members were represented.   Given the failure, thus far, to meet any of the 
deadlines set in the Hong Kong Ministerial Decl aration, the aim of completing the Round in 
December 2006 could not be achieved.  Even if th e negotiations were resumed in September, Cuba 
would not be able to accept an acceleration of the process that would prevent most of the developing countries from participating and w ould make it impossible for their proposals and interests to be 
adequately reflected in all the areas of negotiation.  Cuba was in favour of achieving results in order to 
complete the Round, but not if that involved the fo rmality of compliance with an artificial deadline or 
acceptance of any result, much less if it meant th at Cuba was held hostage to the domestic policy 
designs and dictates of an important Member.  In  an organization committed to upholding the legal 
rules it had created, scrupulous compliance with its ow n rules had to be a fundamental premise of its 
work.  His delegation acknowledged the efforts made by the Director-General to promote 
transparency, and the fact that some progress had been  made in this area.  However, Cuba noted with 
concern a series of irregularities that were starti ng to constitute a dangerous trend that should be 
nipped in the bud.  These included the frequent prac tice of convening meetings at a few hours' notice 
and without specific agendas;  the rapid increase in the number of informal meetings to deal with 
important issues;  the failure to make written texts available to representatives in Geneva, in advance 
of important decisions, for approval and consulta tion with their governments;  the planning of 
numerous important meetings in parallel;  the i gnorance displayed by some chairpersons of WTO 
bodies of the feelings of a large num ber of delegations;  the use of c oncepts and objectives alien to the 
Doha and Hong Kong mandates;  and the growin g influence on the negotiating process of small 
groups outside Geneva, such as the recent G8 Summ it.  While Cuba recognized the importance and 
influence in international trade of the group of th e most industrialized countries, it was essential to 
reaffirm that it was not outside the WTO that the solutions were to be found.  No country or group, 
developed or developing, regardless of its standing in the negotiations or its role in the WTO, should 
take it for granted that it could reach agreem ents without consulting all the Members of the 
organization on high-priority issues vital to the future of developing countries, such as the possible extension of the consultation and negotiation pr ocess during the upcoming month of August, which 
some had taken for granted without ha ving consulted all of the Members. 
17. 
There was talk in Geneva of concepts such as new trade flows and real market access.  These 
issues had no legal basis in the mandate given by Ministers.  This was not a market access round for 
developed countries, but a development round,  and in any case a round concerning developing 
countries' access to the markets of industrialized c ountries.  The developed countries spoke of real and WT/GC/M/103 
Page 8  
 
effective cuts in tariffs by developing countries, bu t refused to apply that approach to their domestic 
multi-million dollar subsidies which distorted world trade.   They spoke of binding the industrial tariffs 
of developing countries at low levels, but resisted applying the same approach to their agricultural 
tariffs that reached levels of several hundred – and in some cases more than a thousand – per cent, and 
they maintained tariff peaks of between 350 and 9 00 per cent on agricultural products of interest to 
developing countries.  Cuba asked what kind of equa lity or development one was talking about here.  
Members could not afford to lose more than four an d a half years of work by all delegations.  Cuba 
would not begin again from scratch.  The pro posals and important documents, such as those on 
possible modalities prepared by the Chairs of th e Agriculture and NAMA negotiating groups, though 
imperfect and not the subject of consensus, constitute d the mandatory basis for Members' future work.  
Many statements had been made reiterating a co mmitment to completion of the Doha Round.  Cuba 
hoped these would be translated into reality sooner rather than later. 
18. The representative of Bangladesh
, on behalf of the LDCs , said these countries had heard the 
statement by the TNC Chair and, like many others, we re deeply disturbed by the need to suspend the 
negotiations.  The LDCs had, and c ontinued to have, high hopes in the Doha Round.  For the first time 
in multilateral trade negotiations, the LDCs had been able to bring on board issues that had a bearing 
on their economic development prospects.  Until a fe w years earlier, the prime moving force in trade 
negotiations had been mercantilist interests.  This force remained as strong as ever.  However, side-
by-side, one now had the encroachment of the development dimension.  Members now realized, more than ever before, that what they did in this orga nization, and the rules they laid down, had a profound 
impact on the LDCs' economic development prospects.   There were many aspects of the negotiations 
on goods, as well as on services, that held potential fo r the LDCs.  However, key to constructing the 
architecture of the development dimension would be the acceptance of the modalities in agriculture 
and NAMA, with specific numbers.  Only when one saw these modalities could one outline what 
needed to be done in a range of other areas.  In  the Informal TNC meeting on 24 July, his delegation 
had stated that many Members could afford to sit s till and wait.  They had economies that were either 
already moving ahead, or did not face the pressur es the LDCs faced.  The case of the LDCs was 
different.  They could not afford to sit still, as tr ade was so fundamental to their development process. 
19. He would not repeat the LDCs' negotiating positions  or what they wanted out of the Round.  
However, in the current state of suspension of the negotiations, it w as important that they put across 
their views to the membership, who had to unders tand clearly what the LDCs wanted.  Although the 
Doha Round was suspended, the LDCs hoped the me mbership could move ahead on the issues that 
effected the development prospects of the least-d eveloped countries.  He was referring here to both 
market access and to the supply-side issues.  By  market access, he meant duty-free and quota-free 
access.  He could not overemphasize how important this was to the LDCs.  This was what created a potential demand for LDC goods.  The supply side w ould hopefully be covered by the enhanced 
Integrated Framework and Aid for Trade.  It was vital that in all these areas, there was movement to 
benefit the LDCs.  He also wished to emphasi ze the importance of the implementation of the 
provisions agreed upon in Hong Kong on LDC modalities for services.  This was equally important to LDCs in the longer term.  There were many othe r areas where the concerns of the LDCs could be 
taken on board, particularly as they hardly affected the larger issues the membership was dealing with.  
At the same time, they were fundamental to the LDCs and to their integration into the multilateral 
trading system.  He urged the membership to continue discussions on these issues immediately after 
the summer break. 
20. The representative of Egypt
 expressed his delegation's deep regret that the consultation 
process had failed to achieve progress on modalities.  Egypt had always been constructive throughout 
the process, and had maintained the necessary flexib ility at every stage.  This constructive position 
emanated from its firm belief in the WTO as a rul es-based organization.  Egypt recognized that the 
negotiations were facing a clear crisis.  It was its  conviction that what was at stake in the Doha 
Development Round was not only the future of trad e concessions or mere market access, but also the 
future of the multilateral trading system as a whol e.  The development agenda within the WTO was  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 9 
 
 
crucial to finding appropriate answers to the mu ltiple challenges of glob alization and endemic 
problems of poverty and development.  Egypt and ot her developing countries did not feel responsible 
for the current stalemate – on the contrary, their in terests had been ignored, a situation that would 
have adverse effects on their economies and on peoples'  lives.  Furthermore, the current crisis would 
certainly contribute to the persistence of trade dist ortions and the continued inequality that continued 
to characterize the world trading system.  Simply put, Egypt had been let down.  Egypt called on the 
major trading powers and its devel opment partners to demonstrate the necessary flexibility and the 
needed political will for the conclusi on of the Round, in order to serve the developmental objectives 
and not to proceed at the expense of developing countries.  Throughout the negotiations since the 
Doha Ministerial Conference, Egypt had invested a lot of negotiating capital, and now found that this 
investment had not paid off.  Despite this, it woul d remain prepared to resume negotiations at the 
appropriate time, provided that this resumption built upon what had already been achieved thus far 
and remained guided by the development objectives set in the Doha mandate. 
21. The representative of Paraguay  expressed his country's dissatisfaction with the current status 
of the Doha Round.  One had once again witnessed th e lack of political will of certain Members who 
played a decisive role in these negotiations.  Th ese were perhaps the very Members who derived the 
greatest benefit from the system, but who, precisely at  such decisive moments, placed it in jeopardy.  
His delegation recognized the efforts made by the Di rector-General and regretted that they had not 
elicited an adequate response.  Pa raguay also felt obliged to compla in once again about the procedure 
used to adopt such a crucial decision concerning th e negotiating round.  Yet again, there had been a 
lack of transparency, and the right of delegations to reflect and to request instructions from trade-
policy officials in capitals had been infringed.  Broader consultations s hould have been conducted 
before a decision was taken.  The considered opi nions of the Members' many negotiating veterans 
might well have provided an insight into how to prevent the collapse that had occurred.  Members 
now faced a fait accompli  and had to avoid any further damage.  Paraguay would have liked the term 
"freezing" to have been used instead of "suspe nsion" of negotiations, as it more graphically and 
expressively described the situation in which Members found themselves. 
22. As far as Paraguay was concerned, all the ma ndates remained unchanged, all the proposals 
remained on the table, and even the "body language " that had been used formed part of a package 
which was and had to remain immutable, unless Members collectively decided otherwise.  For this reason, Paraguay could not but be concerned by the fact that some delegations were already talking 
about selecting certain less controvers ial, or more viable, issues on wh ich they could be encouraged to 
move forward, thereby abandoning the true objectiv es of the Round – those set by Ministers in Doha, 
Cancún and Hong Kong.  This brought to mind events during the Uruguay Round, when many 
delegates, given the standstill in the negotiations, had begun to inveigh against the single undertaking, 
labelling it artificial, unreal and impr actical, and calling for it to be ab andoned.  This episode had been 
forgotten when the Round had ended in success.  At present, however, Members were faced with the 
same scenario – they were being asked to salvage a jumble of subjects or issues for the alleged 
purpose of benefiting developing count ries, or at least some of them.  Paraguay was not prepared to 
endorse approaches that diverted Members from thei r basic mandates and turned their attention to 
fringe issues, even if only temporarily.  It was better to wait until the climate was more favourable before resuming the negotiations at the point where Member had left off, without making any changes.  Otherwise, Members would in the long run be led to destroy what they had achieved and to 
bury forever their dream of seeing the elimination of  unfair barriers that prevented their farmers and 
workers from creating a more di gnified life for themselves. 
23. The representative of Mauritius
, on behalf of the ACP Group , said that at the meeting of the 
TNC on 1 July 2006, Members had given the Dir ector-General a facilitating role to consult 
intensively and widely to try to move the pro cess forward, so that modalities in agriculture and 
NAMA could be established.  However, despite the Di rector-General's efforts, this had unfortunately 
not borne the expected results.  Mauritius greatly regretted this, because it had created a lot of 
frustration and meant that much of the developm ent promises contained in the Doha Round would WT/GC/M/103 
Page 10  
 
have to be put on hold.  As all knew, the ACP countries, despite their meagre capacities and 
resources, had invested heavily in the Doha negotia tions, and were therefore deeply frustrated by the 
current situation.  They hoped that this time-out would bring about the right dose of flexibility and of 
give and take so that Members could reach a ba lanced outcome and could finally establish modalities 
in agriculture and NAMA.  When  these conditions were met, Ma uritius hoped the negotiations would 
resume under the right auspices.  In this context,  he wished to underscore the following.  Mauritius 
agreed with Venezuela that Members would have to  respect the multilateral process.  First, the draft 
papers on agriculture and NAMA that were on the ta ble should be the basis for the negotiations once 
resumed.  Second, the basic principles of the multilateral process, whic h involved the bottom-up 
approach and transparency, should remain at the co re of the negotiations.  His delegation hoped that 
these principles would be respected so that together  Members could achieve a balanced outcome that 
met the interest and needs of all. 
24. The representative of Norway
 said his delegation regretted that  the negotiations would be put 
on hold for a while.  Norway believed that Members we re close to reaching an agreement, although it 
was also conscious that important divergences remain ed.  A result in this Round would have made an 
important contribution to the world economy and to th e fight against global poverty.  All had to strive 
to ensure that the progress made thus far in the negotiations and the results already achieved did not 
wither away, but become realities.  Norway woul d do its part and work actively towards the early 
restarting of the negotiations.  The multilateral tradin g system was important for all Members.  Good, 
predictable and up-to-date rules were key to internat ional trade.  The current temporary set-back in the 
negotiations should not lead to a questioning of the multilateral trading system as such.  His 
delegation was confident that all Members would continue their unwavering support for the system, 
for which there was no alternative.  He stressed the importance Norway attached to the concerns 
expressed about technical assistance and capacity buildi ng, and assured all that a suspension – short or 
long – would not diminish Norway's support for trade-related technical assistance and capacity 
building. 
25. The representative of Singapore  expressed deep dismay and disappointment over the current 
situation.  He would not make a long statement, because it was not what Members said but what they 
did that could change the status quo.  The suspensi on of the negotiations reflected the reality of the 
situation.  Positions remained simply too far ap art, while the political will to conclude the round 
remained too weak.  His delegation wished to make fo ur points.  First, Members had to take collective 
responsibility for the impasse.  All were losers, as th e Director-General had pointed out, and all bore 
some responsibility for their actions or lack thereof.  It was thus pointless to engage in recriminations 
or finger pointing.  The blame game did not help th e process to move forward.  Second, the priority 
now was to put the Doha Round back on track.  Si ngapore had no illusions about  how long this might 
take, but the longer Members waited, the harder it would be to resume the process.  Five years of difficult and often contentious enga gement had left Members with some elements of a deal.  They 
should not throw away the progress already made .  Third, the major players had a special 
responsibility to put the negotiations back on track.  At  this moment of crisis, all looked to them, and 
they needed to show leadership and vision and po litical will.  Singapore hoped they would find a way 
to break the deadlock, because if  they abandoned this challenge now, there would be adverse 
consequences for the entire global trading system .  All would pay a high price for failure.  His 
delegation wished to put on record its continued support and appreciation for the Director-General 
and his untiring efforts to bring this Round to a successful close.  The Di rector-General's role 
remained vital at this moment of crisis, and it w as important that all extended to him their support. 
26. The representative of the Philippines
 said his delegation joined ot hers in noting the Director-
General's recommendation to suspend the negotiations  for a period of reflection, and accepted this 
suspension as perhaps the only viable course, given the divergent views and positions.  However, the 
suspension of the negotiations and the period of refl ection could not be indefinite, as this would be 
acting inconsistently with the developmental spirit an d mandate of Doha.  It would be an injustice to 
the efforts all had invested in the DDA negotiations if  at the end of the period of reflection, Members  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 11 
 
 
were unable to resume the negotiations and address s quarely the hard political decisions needed.  In 
this connection, the Director-General had made it cl ear that there had to be sufficient political will and 
movement on the part of all – and he stressed all – the G6 countries that would permit a resumption of the negotiations.  However, this movement and pol itical will also had to come from all the other 
Members of this organization.  While the G6 count ries were the major players, these same countries 
had to acknowledge that their individual country-speci fic interests should yield to the need to preserve 
the integrity and credibility of the WTO as an inst itution and the multilateral trading system as a 
whole, and that their interests should yield to the developmental interests of the vast majority of 
Members who represented the billions of people liv ing below the poverty line and who were waiting 
to reap the benefits of this development round du ring, and not beyond, their lifetimes.  Furthermore, 
any attempt to carve out issues and items of the DDA agenda, the resolution of which should properly 
form part of the overall balance of the Round an d the single undertaking, should be resisted as 
premature and inconsistent with the spirit of the suspension for a limited period for the purpose of 
reflection.  As Members embarked on this period of  reflection, the Philippines wished to recall that 
most developing countries had agreed to launc h this Round on the premise that the existing 
imbalances and fundamental inequities in the multila teral trading system would be rectified in these 
negotiations.  Thus, for the DDA to be truly a de velopment round, developed trading partners should 
be willing to accept a smaller share of the benefi ts from the negotiations, in order to offset the 
entrenched imbalances and the greater share and benefits obtained already by them in previous 
rounds. 
27. The representative of Malaysia
 said that at the informal meeting of the TNC on 24 July, it had 
been agreed to suspend negotiations in all areas of  the DDA.  This decision had been taken given the 
circumstances in which Members found themselves a nd after due consultations.  The objective of the 
suspension was for all to reflect on the situation and to see what might be done to bring the Round to a 
successful conclusion.  At present and in the coming  weeks, therefore, it was important to consider 
actions to ensure that the negotiations were resu med, but in a manner that would ensure success, as 
measured by the terms of the Doha mandate.  In the meantime, there should be restraint in the area of 
finger-pointing and one-upmanship, as these would not be helpful in fostering a positive atmosphere 
to resume the negotiations.  Members could not persis t in believing that only others were at fault, and 
not themselves.  Without a serious review of nego tiating positions – which woul d be prevented by an 
"I'm OK, you're not OK" attitude – protestations of  concern for the development needs of developing 
countries and commitment to the DDA negotiations could not be taken seriously.  There would be 
support for early resumption of negotiations only if the ingredients were in place for the promise of a 
successful outcome.  His delegation encourag ed all Members to work towards that. 
28. The representative of Thailand  said that unfortunately, things had not worked out as planned, 
and her delegation shared others' sense of regret and disappointment.  The impasse at present, if it 
continued for a long time, would have serous a long- term cost.  It was important, therefore, that 
Members took a time-out to reflect seriously on the c onsequences of this situation, to review their 
positions at the political level, and to examine availa ble options.  In this regard, Members had agreed 
to suspend all negotiations and m eetings related to the DDA until there was readiness, particularly 
among the key players, to move substantially.  Th ere had to be give and take from all sides.  
Realistically, without substantial progress on ke y issues such as agriculture and NAMA it was 
unlikely that Members could achieve progress and make  concessions in other areas.  In addition, as 
Members had different issues of interest and sens itivity, it would be difficult to pick and choose the 
areas on which to proceed.  Members should avoid tippi ng the delicate balance in the coverage of the 
negotiations, and with this in mind preserve the Doha  Declaration.  Thailand remained committed to a 
successful and ambitious outcome of the Doha Round.  It was vital that Members make their utmost 
efforts to revive the talks and to come back to the negotiating table as soon as possible.  The setback 
of the talks would risk weakening the multilateral ru les-based trading system and harm the benefits 
and interests of the global trading community, part icularly the weaker nations.  Thailand asked that 
the Director-General continually assess the situation so that when the environment warranted revival WT/GC/M/103 
Page 12  
 
of the negotiations, Members could be called to i mmediately engage in the process.  Thailand stood 
ready to work constructively with all Member s towards a successful conclusion of the Round. 
29. The representative of Colombia
 said her delegation had made a statement at the informal 
meeting of the TNC on 24 July and wished to repeat that statement at the present meeting so that all 
delegations could hear it.  That statement w as as follows:  As the afternoon progressed, one was 
seeing more and more empty seats in the meeting room .  It was her delegation's impression that this 
was an important meeting, even if an informal one.  Owing to disagreement in the G6, Members had 
been informed that they had to suspend the D oha Round negotiations.  She observed that only one 
Minister from the G6 was currently  present in the meeting room to listen to the other Members, and 
she drew the conclusion that part of the problem lay in the fact Members did not listen to each other.  
She was therefore grateful to the other Minister s present for their attendance at this meeting. 
30. There was an atmosphere of sadness in the meeting room, but that was not what concerned 
her the most.  What concerned her most was the expression of views which cast discredit on the system and which Members would hear and read in the coming days, as the Chairman had mentioned that morning.  As almost no one understood what was really happening, outside organizations were 
celebrating this failure.  There was a lot going on in the world, and everything that happened in this 
highly interconnected world affected all.  She shared  the view of those who believed that there were 
many guilty parties – perhaps all Members – but that  there was no point in engaging in further mutual 
recriminations.  She therefore felt obliged to poin t out that all those who had successfully lodged an 
objection to the process, whether in respect of th e Doha mandate, the July package, the Hong Kong 
mandate or the other instruments governing this ne gotiation, were all losing out.  All were losers, 
especially those with the greatest lobbying capacity, and the conclusion was that the various demands 
had not been met – those by the recently acceded Me mbers, or by the developing countries seeking an 
early reply on special treatment, or by those who described themselves as small and vulnerable 
economies who had enormous difficulties in making cont ributions in order to be eligible to receive 
benefits, or by those who did not wish to see the er osion of their preferences, or by those who would 
like to consolidate, for the sake of economic growth , the unilateral reforms they had undertaken in 
services, or by those who saw agricultural reform , however gradual, as their desired means of 
achieving a genuinely more equitable price structur e, with genuine reductions  in domestic support, 
without export subsidies, so as to improve access for agricultural products. 
31. Colombia called for courage in telling the world clearly what had happened – that all of the 
G6 Members were responsible for their failings, a nd that none of them could be singled out for 
individual blame.  At the same  time, the other Members had to recognize the difficulty of 
understanding that the Doha Round might perhaps need revision and that the world was not yet ready to make so many changes, at least not at the same  time.  A commitment to the status quo seemed to be 
the desire of many, but even so, there were no bene fits, as the Director-General had said, and in the 
case of Colombia at least, it now had a new problem, i.e. how to explain this impasse in the 
negotiations, which would certainly be reported nega tively by the press and agricultural operators.  
Colombia refused to accept that this negotiati ng process was one in which there were wolves and 
sheep, because in reality, all were either all wolv es or all sheep, and Colombia did not see Members as 
sheep on the point of being attacked by wolves.  Her delegation urged Members to use the August 
recess for reflection and to come back in Septem ber to map out the future, although all should be 
aware that there was no time to conclude the negotia tions in 2006.  At the same time, it could not be 
said that there had been a failure and that the process had ended. 
32. The customary tendency to hear only what one wanted to hear had damaged all Members, and 
she asked no one include the name of her country  among those developing countries about which it 
was said that they wished to a pply all the exceptions, separately or at the same time.  Her delegation 
was frustrated at the failure to conclude issues th at could have been conc luded pending agreement on 
the modalities.  Work had to contin ue on issues such as Aid for Trade and trade facilitation, so that if 
anything, they might provide a basis for preparing for the opening of markets, especially in  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 13 
 
 
developing countries.  Unlike some developing co untries, and without playing down the importance 
of what was going on, her delegation believed that Members had to produce good news and less 
apocalyptic rhetoric which harmed the reputation of  the organization, and they also had to pledge 
themselves to refocus on the process in September.  This had been her statement on 24 July.  She 
wished to conclude by saying that Colombia a nd other countries, including Costa Rica, were very 
concerned about some delegations speaking on behalf of the group of developing countries as a whole 
without a mandate to do so.  However, her delegation believed there had been a genuine 
misunderstanding on this subject, and did not think this should have been an issue at the present 
meeting. 
33. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that despite the sad truth that the negotiations 
across the Round were suspended, his delegation wish ed to join previous speakers in commending the 
Director-General unreservedly on his sustained ef forts to facilitate a convergence in Members' 
positions that would have allowed them to push ahead with the negotiations.  In recent weeks, his 
delegation had been hoping that the major players could somehow find a way to break the deadlock in the "triangle of issues".  The outcome, however, was surely disappointing and extremely frustrating 
for all.  His delegation also wished to echo the wo rds of some delegations at the meeting of the TNC 
on 24 July and at the informal meeting of the General Council earlier that day, emphasizing the 
immense effort and cost already undertaken in pu rsuing a successful Round over the past five years, 
which was a reason in itself for making Chinese Taip ei want to stay the course and not give up too 
easily.  It might be the time to break off the ne gotiations, but instead of allowing themselves to fall 
into a long slumber, Members should use this as a time to consider their next step – the step that could 
finally complete a successful Doha Round.  Speaking as the world's 16
th largest trading economy, his 
delegation wished to assure the Chairman that it w ould continue with its best efforts to work as 
constructively as possible with the Director-General  and with all its fellow Members in the future 
negotiations in this Round.  Chinese Taipei remained  totally committed to this process.  As pointed 
out by the Director-General in his introductory remarks, no one wanted to give up, despite the 
deadlock.  With this in mind, his delegation sincer ely hoped that the Director-General could continue 
the facilitating role he had been playing, in orde r to find a way to resume the negotiations at the 
earliest.  Chinese Taipei also wished to urge the membership to show the political will to put the 
negotiations back on track as soon as possible. 
34. The representative of Chad , on behalf of the co-sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in Favour 
of Cotton , said that in spite of the Director-General's effo rts, the positions of certain key players in the 
negotiations remained rigid and had created a deadlo ck in the process of establishing modalities with 
a view to the conclusion of the Doha Round in Decemb er 2006.  This lack of flexibility had led to the 
recommendation that the negotiations be suspended in all areas.  This situation was serious and 
represented a challenge to all Members, to one extent  or another.  It was especially challenging to 
those who refused to make the sacrifices or concessions needed to help Members out of this deadlock.  
The co-sponsors of the Cotton Initiative and all the African cotton-producing countries were 
extremely concerned about the serious economic, social and psychological consequences of the 
decision to suspend the negotiations.  These countries and their populations had to continue to endure 
the harsh reality of reduced incomes in the cott on sector caused by the subsidies and domestic support 
that certain developed countries granted their ow n cotton producers.  However, these countries and 
populations would not resign themselves to living in poverty, or give up when faced with difficulties 
in satisfying basic needs, such as a balanced diet , health, adequate housing and primary education.  
Using their voice, the people in the capital cities of  these countries, in the villages and in the hamlets 
wished to express their disappointment and frustra tion at the decision to suspend the negotiations 
following the refusal of certain key players in interna tional trade to show flexibility in their positions.  
These populations had placed great faith in the multilateral trading system, in the hope that it would 
lay down rules for fair and equitable international tr ade in cotton.  However, the current deadlock was 
making these populations doubt the WTO's ability to resolve the trade-related problems faced by 
weaker countries, and making them question whether it was in their interests to be Members of the 
organization. WT/GC/M/103 
Page 14  
 
35. The disappointment of these countries was even greater, given the amount of effort, 
disproportionate to their means, they had made at  both the financial and human-resource level, in the 
hope of achieving a fair and development-oriented mu ltilateral system.  In so doing, they had proved 
their commitment to the multilateral system's rules.   These countries were now wondering about the 
future of the following cotton-related decisions  taken in Hong Kong, which were:  Developed 
countries would give duty- and quota-free access to cotton exports from LDCs from the start of the 
implementation period;  all forms of export subsid ies for cotton would be eliminated by developed 
countries by December 2006;  trade-distorting do mestic subsidies for cotton production would be 
reduced ambitiously and expeditiously .  The efforts these countries had made over the years to reform 
and liberalize their economies woul d be profitable only if successful results were not quashed by 
barriers on exports of the few products in which they had a clear comparative advantage and the 
potential for development.  For this reason, the f our co-sponsors of the Cotton Initiative supported the 
statement by Benin on behalf of the African Group and asked that the nego tiations recommence as 
soon as possible, i.e. after the summer break, because  the serious and urgent nature of the problems 
faced by these countries was such that they could not allow themselves the luxury of waiting 
indefinitely until certain key players in the negotiatio ns felt ready to assume their responsibilities.  In 
this regard, they wished to reitera te their readiness to contribute to any initiative that would enable the 
negotiations to resume and that would allow fair, ba lanced and durable solutions to the cotton issue to 
be found. 
36. The representative of Uganda
 associated his delegation with the statements by Bangladesh for 
the LDCs and by Benin for the African Group.  Ug anda had been disheartened by the suspension of 
the negotiations announced by the TNC Chairman on 24 July.  Like other LDCs, Uganda strongly 
believed that the multilateral trading system presente d opportunities to secure international trade rules 
whose level of predictability and scope could not be  matched by other systems.  Uganda embraced the 
DDA as an opportunity that would result in new ma rket access openings, stream lined trade rules that 
would allow for utilization of these markets, an d technical assistance and support for capacity 
building that would address its supply-side constraint s.  Uganda's hopes had been strengthened by the 
success already achieved in some areas, such as duty-free quota-free market access, the apparent 
progress on Aid for Trade, the Enhanced Integrated  Framework, and other negotiating areas such as 
potential meaningful offers in trade in services, as well as a development-oriented outcome of negotiations on trade facilitation.  The achievement s attained in these areas should not be lost and 
should remain part of the single undertaking.  Uganda was therefore committed to supporting the 
Director-General fully in his efforts to bring Memb ers back to the negotiating table so the objectives 
of the Doha Round could be fully achieved. 
37. The representative of Zambia
2 said his delegation supported the statements by Bangladesh for 
the LDCs, by Benin for the African Group and by Mauritius for the ACP Group. 
38. The representative of Pakistan  said that like others who had spoken and who were interested 
in economic growth and in raisi ng living standards, especially of the poor, Pakistan was extremely 
disappointed and regretted that Members had gotte n so close but had not achieved agreement.  
Unfortunately, certain Members who were in a lead ership role had not been able to live up to 
expectations.  The indefinite suspension of the ne gotiations would be very risky and would undermine 
the credibility of the multilateral trading system.  One obvious result, which was already becoming 
evident because of the prolongation of the negotiati ons, was the further proliferation of FTAs and 
RTAs, and greater destabilization and marginalization of the less fortunate countries.  While Pakistan 
welcomed the preservation of the progress already ach ieved, it would not be able to support proposals 
for the partial resumption of talks under the claims th at this would promote development.  If the major 
economies were keen on doing something for deve lopment, Pakistan would ask them to do 
                                                      
2 The delegation of Zambia requested that its statement at the informal meeting of the TNC on 24 July 
be included in the records of the present meeting.  The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present 
records.  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 15 
 
 
unilaterally what a majority of developing countries were asking th em to do – eliminate tariff peaks 
on items of export interest to developing countri es, substantially reduce their agricultural trade-
distorting subsidies and provide predictability on rules such as anti-dumping.  While his delegation 
agreed with the TNC Chair on the suspension of th e negotiations across the board, it could not agree 
to any partial resumption of negotiations.  Pakistan encouraged the Director-General to continue his 
consultations and to make every effort fo r an early resumption of the negotiations. 
39. The representative of Antigua and Barbuda , also on behalf of Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, 
St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago , recalled that 
the Doha Development Round had be en launched in 2001 in recognition of the key role trade could 
play in promoting economic devel opment and alleviating poverty.  The multilateral trading system 
embodied in the WTO was expected to deliver real we lfare gains for all peoples, particularly those in 
the developing and least-developed countries.  Five years later, Members found themselves at a crossroads, where the Director-General, as Chairman  of the TNC, had reported that the negotiations 
had been suspended.  He asked how  Members could have come to this point after expending so much 
time, energy and resources on the negotiations.  In these countries' view, a contributing factor 
stemmed from the gradual erosion of the bottom-up a pproach, which in effect had made the process 
less transparent.  Despite this being a developm ent round, Members had forgotten or ignored the 
development dimension.  They had allowed development issues to be back-loaded.  Many developing 
countries, such as those on behalf of which he spoke , had exhibited flexibility and good faith to ensure 
the success of this Round.  However, the often ex treme demands made of developing countries by 
some developed countries had contributed to the creati on of greater imbalances.  In what seemed to be 
a reverse form of less-than-full reciprocity, some de veloped countries had sought carve-outs in areas 
where they had sensitivities, while refusing to acce pt the legitimate developmental trade needs of 
developing countries.  There was a need for clarif ication of what a suspension or time-out entailed 
with regard to the negotiations, a nd what this meant for the DDA, wh at the exact areas were in which 
such suspension would apply, and how long the suspen sion would last.  It would be more useful if 
negotiations resumed sooner rather than later, and with development interests and concerns at their 
core.  Otherwise, Members ran the risk of mi ssing a window of opportunity while the multilateral 
trading system still enjoyed some credibility and momentum, and while its constituents still believed 
it could help them achieve  developmental objectives. 
40. As regards next steps, the negotiations s hould resume in a manner that ensured full 
transparency, and in which the positions of all Me mbers were heard and taken into account – i.e. a 
true bottom-up approach.  Development issues had to  be placed at the forefront.  Resumption of the 
trade negotiations could not be on the basis of pr e-prepared texts that Members were expected to 
endorse as a fait accompli  to secure progress in the Round.  Members should aim to ensure the 
stability of the Round by returning to the very tene ts of what Ministers had envisioned in 2001 and 
which had been endorsed in subsequent Ministerial meetings.  Given the current impasse, and given 
that development was at the heart of this Round, serious consideration should be given to seeking to 
advance certain S&D issues even while the impasse pe rsisted.  Despite their resource constraints, the 
countries on whose behalf he spoke had been enga ging faithfully and demonstrating flexibility to 
advance the process, because th ey remained convinced that this Development Round and the 
multilateral trading system could promote the expans ion of trade and contribute to fostering real 
development.  They therefore asked no less of ot hers than to ensure the success of the Round. 
41. The representative of Barbados
 said that while his delegation added its voice in support of the 
decision to suspend work in the negotiating groups at  the present stage, it did so with the hope that the 
reality that had led to the suspen sion would evolve into a reality th at opened the door for a resumption 
of the negotiations.  It also hoped that the suspensi on would be temporary.  Th is setback should not be 
allowed to dismantle the progress already made, nor undermine the expectations that a small country 
like Barbados, and other small, vulnerable economies, considered essential to their integration into the 
global economy.  This was so because Barbados sa w the multilateral system as the principal vehicle 
through which its trade concerns could be treated a nd some of its aspirations realized.  It was from WT/GC/M/103 
Page 16  
 
this perspective, and with its commitment to a br oad, collective process, that Barbados urged the 
membership as a whole not only to use this timeout to reflect on the technical and political circumstances that had brought Memb ers to the present point, but equally to give fresh thought to the 
seriousness of their commitment to a development ag enda.  All Members were trying to get to the 
same place in terms of trade liberalization, but some had to travel at a different pace.  In order for all 
Members to arrive at that common meeting place in good condition, they needed first to arrive at a 
meeting of minds around two critical issues – ambiti on and development.  T hose two had to balance 
each other if Members were to conclude any agr eement in good conscience.  In this endeavour, 
ambition and development did not have to become mutual ly exclusive, at least not if all were prepared 
to be open-minded and deliberate in ensuring that  the outcome of these negotiations had benefits for 
all.  Barbados believed that a ll could be winners in the end. 
42. The representative of Ecuador
3 said that a few days earlier delegations had listened with 
stupor and surprise to the announcement that negotiations on modalities on Agriculture and NAMA had not progressed in spite of the announcements by  the various heads of state and government of the 
G6 in St. Petersburg.  When Ecuador had acceded  to the WTO 10 years earlier, it had taken on many 
obligations that had not been easy to agree to or incorporate into its economy which, until then, had 
been strongly protectionist and rife with instabilit y.  However, Ecuador had understood that in a 
globalized world with constant trade flows and considerable movement of persons and goods, it 
needed to change its concepts, policies and philosophy on international trade, even if at a high cost.  Her country had fulfilled, and would continue to fulfil, its obligations .  As all knew, any relationship 
consisted of rights and obligati ons.  This was why Ecuador was now calling on the biggest trading 
partners to comply with their obligations, to exerci se leadership and not to tell developing countries 
that negotiations had been suspended because their national positions were immovable, thus making 
developing countries pay more than they should and more than their economies could bear.  These countries had expectations with regard to the conc lusion of this Round.  There were urgent matters 
that required modalities for the opening of markets that were vital for their economies.  The Doha 
mandate had to remain firmly before Members, not only to preserve the multilateral trading system, as 
had been said during the TNC meeting on 24 July, but to strengthen it through real political commitment on the part of the larg er Members, as had been done by  the developing countries.  This 
was why it was extremely frustrating to see the passiveness with which the announcement of the 
suspension of the negotiations had been met.  Ecuado r urgently requested that the Secretariat analyze 
and inform Members of the consequences and imp lications of a suspension of the negotiations, 
especially for developing economies, and that ne gotiations resume as soon as possible after the 
summer break.  Her delegation requested that the Di rector-General make his best efforts to make up 
for lost ground.  Members could not lose ground, and the development Round could not lose sight of its mandate. 
43. The representative of Senegal
 associated his delegation with the statements by Benin for the 
African Group and by Bangladesh for the LDCs.  The failure of the G6 meeting in Geneva on 
23-24 July had come as a blow to his delegation.  Senegal believed strongly in multilateralism which, 
in spite of its flaws, Senegal considered to be th e best system of world economic governance.  As an 
LDC, Senegal was among the Members who least be nefited from the development of international 
trade, owing to the insufficient diversification of its exports, coupled w ith the weakness of its 
productive capacities.  The 2006 UNCTAD Least-De veloped Countries Report shed considerable 
light on the challenges facing countries like Senega l.  Considerable hope had been placed in this 
Round and, so far, that hope had been frustrated.   At the present stage Members needed to ponder 
over the ability of the international trading system to contribute to fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals if the Doha Round were at risk .  At a time when the world was dominated by 
conflicts whose human, social and economic cost for so many countries was immeasurable – if only in 
                                                     
 
3 The delegation of Ecuador requested that its statement at the informal meeting of the TNC on 24 July 
be included in the records of the present meeting.  The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present 
records.  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 17 
 
 
terms of their impact on the price of oil – one could well imagine that Senegal was justifiably 
concerned at the prospect of additional constraints that could very well wipe out all of the sacrifices 
and efforts already made – and still to be made – towards its economic and social development.  His 
country placed hope in the ability of the organizatio n to guide Members in the right direction, along 
the path of consultation, flexibility, reciprocal con cessions and, above all, generosity towards the most 
vulnerable Members.  Unfortunately, this did not appear to be happening at the present time.  His 
delegation hoped that the suspension of the negotia tions would be very short, and that Members 
would do their utmost to seek the consensus needed to conclude the Round.  Senegal also hoped that 
this suspension would not call into question th e progress already recorded, particularly on the 
Enhanced Integrated Framework, Aid for Trade, and duty- and quota-free market access for LDCs.  
Although deeply disappointed, his delegation remain ed optimistic, and urged all Members to share its 
optimism.  Indeed, as long as Members believed in th e benefits of the rules- based multilateral trading 
system, such moments of crisis could help enhan ce their collective awareness and enable them to 
make political decisions which, though they might be  difficult, were necessary to reach an agreement 
in the current round of negotiations.  It was in this  spirit that his delegation appealed for leadership 
and renewed political commitment on the part of the Members of the G6 that would allow them to 
redouble their efforts and make concessions, so that  the negotiations could be resumed as rapidly as 
possible.  His delegation encouraged the Chairman and the Director-General to pursue their efforts 
during this period of suspension to help Members ma intain their contacts and continue their informal 
consultations with a view to overcoming the re maining obstacles to the establishment of modalities 
for agriculture and NAMA.  Senegal remained ready to act, together with all Members, to find a way 
out of this crisis as rapidly as possible. 
44. The representative of Bolivia  said that in the current situa tion, her delegation was concerned 
about how to ensure progress in the negotiations and the various contributions and proposals made by 
developing countries like Bolivia.  This seemed to be the moment to speak of procedure – i.e. when to 
resume the negotiations and in what forum.  In this connection, the resumption of the negotiating 
process should involve all 149 Members, and the most appropriate forum appeared to be the General 
Council.  Regarding the time available in the future  – in which all would need to make their voices 
heard – the Director-General had given some assuran ces in his report that the negotiations, when they 
resumed, would be conducted as transparently as possible and in accordance with the "bottom-up" 
approach.  It was obvious that this organization was not in the business of delegating authority to 
small groups of countries which did not necessarily re present two-thirds of the WTO.  Lastly, it was 
important to emphasize the necessity of not losing the benefit of the progress already made and of the 
contributions by small countries like Bolivia.  Futu re discussions had to be based on the documents 
that were presently on the table. 
45. The representative of Nigeria  expressed his delegation's disappointment and anxiety over the 
current stalemate.  The impasse was not due to lack of effort, particularly by the Director-General and 
Chairpersons of the negotiating groups, but rather the lack of sufficient willingness on the part of the 
major players to show leadership and much need ed flexibility at a critical period to salvage the 
situation.  Although other delegations might share the same burden and pains, they did not share the 
same level of responsibility.  In spite of the cu rrent gloomy prospects, Nigeria remained optimistic 
that there would be light at the end of the tu nnel.  His delegation remained committed to the 
realization of the overall development ambition of  the Round and its timely conclusion as envisaged.  
In this regard, Nigeria joined others in requesti ng developed-country partners, upon the resumption of 
the negotiations, to demonstrate their willingness thr ough concrete actions that would be decisive in 
restoring the hope and credibility that had been put to the test due to the suspension of the 
negotiations.  Nigeria accepted this suspension, wh ich was not of its making, as a reflection of its 
helplessness in the present situation.  His delegati on also wished to underline the importance of the 
bottom-up approach, transparency and inclusiveness, which was the bedrock of the organization, and 
asked that it be shown in Members' future engageme nts.  As the Director-General had rightly pointed 
out, all Members were losers, but their losses might not necessarily be the same.  This being the case, 
Members were bound to mourn their losses differently  in relation to the magnitude of such losses, WT/GC/M/103 
Page 18  
 
which might be difficult to quantify.  He recalled Ni geria's statement at the informal meeting of the 
TNC on 24 July that there had been enough rhetoric and it was time for action.  Nigeria agreed that 
Members had a collective responsibility to put the negotiations back on track in a responsible and 
responsive manner.  Members might have different path s to the destination, but it was certain they had 
a common destination.  Although the journey might be long and tortuous, the joy was in reaching the 
destination safe and sound, in spite of all the di fficulties.  Nigeria's destination was the timely and 
successful conclusion of the negotiations, with the development content intact.  In concluding, his 
delegation associated itself with the statement by Benin for the African Group. 
46. The representative of Peru
 said Peru was working for a multilateral trading system that was 
liberalized and equitable.  Obviously, it shared th e deep concern at the indefinite suspension of the 
Doha Round.  The work done by the Director-Gener al, together with the Chairs of the negotiating 
bodies, had been important and stimulating.  Th e negotiations had a correct format, Members had 
ring-fenced key issues, the negotia tions in the G6 had been quite contained and there had been a 
bottom-up feedback approach which had conferred legitimacy on the process.  The failure had not 
been because of a wrong approach in the negotiati on strategy, but because the needed concessions had 
not been made.  For this reason, Members' asse ssment should be cool-headed.  They should not 
downplay the effects of suspension, nor should they bl ow them out of proportion.  It was important to 
be realistic and to have a will for change.  To move forward into the future, Members had to be 
realistic and understand that additi onal flexibility and concessions were necessary for the negotiations 
to be resumed successfully.  Obviously, an importa nt group of industrialized countries had to make a 
special effort with regard to agriculture, and th eir efforts would determine whether or not Members 
would have a positive outcome once the negotiations were resumed.  A will for change was essential 
to overcome the rigidity that had led Members to th e present situation.  His delegation also wished to 
point out that the side-effect of the talks had been positive.  Proposals had been tabled, and these 
proposals should be seen as what Members had achieved – this was a good thing.  Peru would fully 
support informal consultations the Director-Gen eral might hold, and hoped the General Council 
would be briefed on any results of such consultati ons.  Peru hoped that these consultations and a 
critical analysis of developments would help Me mbers take the domestic and joint policy decisions 
that would lead to resumption of the negotiations. 
47. The representative of Rwanda  said her delegation agreed with the Director-General's 
assessment regarding the reasons for the current deadlock and with his suggestions for the way 
forward.  Rwanda expressed its profound regret  and disappointment at the suspension of the 
negotiations without any clear date for their r esumption, and fully supported the statements by 
Bangladesh for the LDCs, Benin for the African  Group and Mauritius for the ACP Group.  Her 
delegation wished to thank the Director-General for his conviction and determination to save this 
Round despite the current crisis.  She could not overemphasize the importance of the Doha 
Development Round and the urgency of resuming th e negotiations.  This was the only development 
round in the history of multilateral trade negotiatio ns.  No Member or group of Members should be 
allowed to kill it.  It was therefore necessary a nd urgent that the negotiations resume as soon as 
possible.  Rwanda had been seriously engaged in all areas of negotiations despite its meagre 
resources.  Its aim was to contribute to building an equitable and rules-based multilateral trading system that would be beneficial to all Members, which would mean a free flow of goods and services 
across all customs territories.  When  Members started this Round in 2001, they were convinced of its 
potential benefits for their countries in terms of  trade development, ec onomic growth and poverty 
reduction.  Rwanda's ambition to promote trade and economic development and to secure market 
access for its products was still on record.  Rwanda considered market access to be an important 
element of any successful agreement resulting from the negotiations, and that increased trade flows 
for all Members – especially for developing count ries and LDCs – was crucial if the DDA was to 
fulfil its potential for opening markets, advancing ec onomic development and alle viating poverty.  It 
was against this background that Rwanda called upon all Members, par ticularly the G6, to take the 
necessary political decisions and to work constructivel y in order to resume negotiations without delay, 
so all Members could reap benefits from the Round .  Her delegation was encouraged that Members  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 19 
 
 
had expressed positive signs in this regard, even if  it still remained unclear when the negotiations 
would resume.  Her delegation was particularly encour aged by the fact that major players had pledged 
to remain focused on putting the Doha Round back on track and were still committed to the spirit of 
the Round and the multilateral trading system.  To see this commitment materialize was Rwanda's 
wish.  It hoped to see clear and positive signals for the resumption of negotiations in the very near 
future. 
48. The representative of Cambodia  said that while his delegation shared the membership's 
frustration and regret over the proposed suspension of  the negotiations, perhaps after five long years 
of negotiation the negotiators needed an extende d summer break.  However, as the Director-General 
had said, all were losers in such a suspension, a nd Cambodia would add that there were big and small 
losers, and the biggest were the LDCs.  The longer th is time-out lasted, the more the poorest countries 
would suffer.  For this reason, his delegation sh ared the views of Bangladesh for the LDCs, of 
Mauritius for the ACP Group, and of Benin for the A frican Group.  It was important for developing 
countries that this suspension was not too prolon ged.  A suspension of the DDA negotiations across 
the board would send a very negative signal to the p ublic, especially in LDCs.  For this reason, his 
delegation wondered whether the suspension should not be for a limited term and not across the 
board.  Wherever there were possibilities to move, su ch as Aid for Trade and the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework, Members should proceed.  This would enc ourage negotiators to move in other areas.  If 
the General Council decided at the present meeting on the suspension of the negotiations, it also had 
to decide on their resumption.  He proposed that instead of having an indefinite suspension, Members 
leave it to the next General Council to review whet her to continue the suspension or to resume the 
negotiations.  If there was any substantial movement  during the summer, perhaps the Director-General 
could call for a special meeting of the Gene ral Council to take a decision on resuming the 
negotiations. 
49. The Chairman  said that he had thus far heard a number of different views on some of the 
issues, and he took it from this that Members wish ed to reflect further and to see how these various 
issues were actually going to be addressed as and when they appeared. 
50. The representative of Guatemala  said it was now obvious, and regrettable, that Members had 
not reached their target.  His Government deeply re gretted the suspension of the negotiations.  At the 
informal meeting of the TNC on 24 July, the Ni caraguan Minister had pr esented, on behalf of 
Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, the Dominican Republic and Guatemala, these countries' joint 
position as small and vulnerable economies in the cont ext of the negotiations, and asked that this 
statement be included in the records of the present meeting.4  At the same time, his delegation wished 
to emphasize that Guatemala continued to be committed to the Doha negotiations, and to the 
multilateral system, and that it stood by the Director-General.  Guatemala would continue working constructively as it had done throughout the past years.  Its objective as a small, vulnerable economy was to increase its share of international trade and thus extend the benefits of development to its 
people.  For this reason, we wish to see the time- out in the negotiations used solely to reflect on the 
correct manner of resuming work in the near future , in order to achieve a successful outcome to the 
Doha Development Round. 
51. The representative of Costa Rica
5 said his delegation was grateful for the Director-General's 
efforts to date and supported his work in future stages.  Costa Rica would try to help resume the 
negotiations.  It had supported the Round since its inception and even before, and continued to do so 
because it believed the Round was a driving force for the world economy that all needed.  It would 
provide opportunities and benefits that would en able all Members to reach higher levels of 
                                                      
4 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records. 
5 The delegation of Costa Rica requested that its statement at the informal  meeting of the TNC on 
24 July be included in the records of the present mee ting.  The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the 
present records. WT/GC/M/103 
Page 20  
 
development.  His delegation trusted that during th is time-out, all would understand that even though 
the major players of the G6 had an important role  to play, all Members had a responsibility for what 
had happened.  The necessary concessions by the G6 countries and the developed countries had not 
been made, but nor had the developing countries made the necessary concessions.  If this was not 
acknowledged, Members were doomed to fail in the Round.  It was necessary to review the positions 
of the various sides, and each Member, develope d and developing, should make a substantial 
contribution to improved offers for market acces s in agriculture and NAMA, and also domestic 
support.  This would require an effort not only on the part of the G6, but also on the part of those 
represented by each of the G6 Members.  It was also necessary for Members to settle a number of 
different issues that had been put off until later, be cause there was a risk that groups of countries or 
individual countries would feel that their in terests were not being taken into account. 
52. With regard to the point of order he had raised earlier, he recalled that he had done this when 
Benin had referred to all developing countries as part  of his statement on behalf of the African Group.  
He was certain that that statement on behalf of th e African Group was based on the best of intentions 
and the interests of African countries and LDCs, and was in keeping with the interests of all 
developing countries.  For this reas on, he regretted having had to intervene.  It seemed, however, that 
there was an effort afoot to divide developing countries in the negotiations based on their national 
interests, and this was the case also for developed countries.  At the 24 July TNC he had said this and 
had asked that developing countries themselves be ab le to determine what was best for them in 
achieving their own objectives and development strategi es, and this had been the rationale behind his 
point of order.  One had to be very vigilant when using the concept of developm ent.  He reiterated that 
his delegation had every respect for and supporte d the African Group's concerns, and hoped that it 
would be possible to close the rift among develo ping countries.  He again thanked the Director-
General for his efforts and reiterated that Co sta Rica would fully support him in his work. 
53. The General Council took note
 of the Director-General's report and of the statements.6  
2. Outstanding implementation issues under pa ragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration – Review of progress and any appropriate action as provided for in 
paragraph 39 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration 
54. The Chairman  recalled that in paragraph 39 of the Hong Kong Declaration 
(WT/MIN(05)/DEC), Ministers had requested the Director-General, without prejudice to the positions of Members, to intensify his consultative pr ocess on all outstanding implementation issues under 
paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Declaration, and had in structed him to report to each regular meeting of 
the TNC and the General Council.  They had also instructed the Council to review progress and take 
any appropriate action regarding this matter no later than 31 July 2006.  
 
55. The Director-General  said that in line with paragraph 39 of the Hong Kong Declaration, he 
had continued his consultations on the outstandi ng implementation issues under 12(b) of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration.  In keeping with the instru ctions of Ministers, these consultations had been 
carried out without prejudice to the positions of Me mbers on any of the outstanding issues.  He had 
reported on progress in this consultative process at the February, March and May meetings of the 
TNC, and at the May meeting of the General Counc il.  At these meetings he had informed Members 
that overall the situation had not evolved since Hong Kong, and that in many areas the ball was 
essentially in the court of the proponents of the va rious issues.  However, he had expressed the hope 
                                                      
6 In addition to the statements made at the meeting, the delegations of Argentina, China, Ecuador, 
Indonesia for the G33, Mexico, Nepal, Nicaragua (a lso for Guatemala, El Sa lvador, Honduras and the 
Dominican Republic), and the United States asked that th eir statements at the inform al meeting of the TNC on 
24 July be included in the records of this General Council meeting.  These statements are reproduced in the 
Annex to the present records. 
  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 21 
 
 
that should things change by July, he would be able  to report progress in some areas.  This was why, 
at the time, he had urged everyone to make every effort, in order to be in a position at the present meeting to take appropriate action, as instructed in paragraph 39 of the Hong Kong Declaration.  He 
recalled that in these consultations he had been assi sted by the Chairpersons of a number of the bodies 
concerned acting as Friends, and also by two of hi s Deputy Directors-General.  He then provided a 
brief update on where Members stood on these issues.  Starting with GI extension, although DDG 
Mr Yerxa had held numerous consultations, the pos itions of the participants in the discussions 
remained essentially unchanged.  Among the key issues on which positions remained divided were:  
whether the current level of protection for GIs for products other than wines and spirits under 
Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement was sufficient for protecting such GIs;  and the implications of 
extension for other producers that had been using th e terms in question in their own market and in 
third country markets, and the extent to which ex tension of the exceptions provisions of Article 24 
would meet concerns on this count.  It was on these issues that positions were divided.  As to the 
action to be decided by the General Council, the proponents of GI extension had advocated a clear 
General Council decision to engage in text-based ne gotiations aiming at providing GI extension.  
Some other delegations opposed moving to negotiati ons and argued that the case for extension of 
additional protection had not been made.  Howeve r, these delegations had expressed preparedness to 
envisage further fact-based work on the issue.  On  the issue of the relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the CBD, the consultations had includ ed the examination of a non-exhaustive list of 
topics which had been drawn up by DDG Mr Yerxa on th e basis of his consultations with delegations 
and, of course, on his own responsibility but with his agreement.  While positions in the detailed 
consultations on the basis of the topics on the list remained essentially unchanged, the consultations 
had facilitated a more clear-cut identification of th e points of divergence and convergence – of which 
there were both – and of the key policy questions that remained to be decided.  As to the action to be 
decided by the General Council, the proponents of  a new TRIPS disclosure obligation advocated a 
clear General Council decision to engage in text-b ased negotiations aimed at providing for such an 
obligation.  Some other delegati ons opposed negotiations but had indicated preparedness to envisage 
further fact-based work on the issue aimed at seei ng how the underlying commonly agreed objectives 
could best be realized. 
56. With regard to the other outstanding implemen tation issues – which related to other TRIPS 
issues, BOP, Market Access, TRIMs, Customs Valuation, Safeguards and TBT – his report at the present meeting would be extremely short, and was not , regrettably, very different from what he had 
reported in May, because the situation had not evolve d much, if at all.  His impression, as he had 
reported the last time, was that the ball was in th e court of the proponents and would remain there if 
they did not kick it somewhere else, which they ha d not done.  It was quite clear on these issues that, 
overall, Members' positions remained divided on th e most active issues.  Other issues had been 
becoming more or less dormant at the present stage.  There had not been much progress since Hong 
Kong and, not surprisingly, this was related, in  his view, to the overall environment of the 
negotiations.  Therefore, he believed that in li ght of this continued gridlock, Members should 
seriously reflect on the future approach to these issu es, as they would be doing on the wider situation.  
It would have been a big surprise if there had been substantial progress on issues of this kind and 
nature while Members were in the present situation re garding the rest of the negotiations.  Thus, while 
there was no surprise, it did not mean that this was not a disappointment, as he had heard earlier on 
other issues.  He remained willing, if Members so  wished, to do what he could to assist, but his 
conviction was that the broader issues would be the determinant. 
57. The Chairman
 said that given the impasse in the Di rector-General's consultations on the 
outstanding implementation issues, as in the negotia tions, he would only urge all delegations to use 
the summer break as a period of serious reflection on th is situation.  For his part, he would continue 
his contacts with delegations and with the Direct or-General to consider how Members might take 
work forward in this area, although realistically one should be under no illusion that these issues could 
make significant progress until the overa ll negotiating environment improved. WT/GC/M/103 
Page 22  
 
58. The General Council took note
 of the Director-General's report and of the statement. 
3. Accession of Tonga – Extension of time-limit for acceptance of protocol of accession 
(WT/GC/107, WT/GC/W/567) 
59. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Tonga in document WT/GC/107 
requesting an extension of the time-limit for acceptan ce of its Protocol of Accession, and to the draft 
Decision in document WT/GC/W/567 which had b een circulated to facilitate the Council's 
consideration of this matter at the present meeting.   
60. In its communication, Tonga had indicated that  due to unforeseen domestic circumstances, it 
would not be able to accomplish all of its ratifica tion procedures within the time-limit of 31 July 2006 
provided for in paragraph 7 of its Protocol of Accession to the WTO.  Accordingly, Tonga had 
requested that the time-limit for accomplishment of all necessary procedures for its ratification of the 
Protocol of Accession to the WTO be extended to 1 July 2007, and that the General Council take a 
sympathetic view on this request.  In the light  of this request, and unless delegations had any 
objections, he proposed that, in accordance with the Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX 
and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in Nove mber 1995 (WT/L/93), the General Council adopt the 
draft decision contained in document WT/GC/W/567. 
61. The General Council so agreed .7 
4. Follow-up to the 1 August 2004 General Council Decision and the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration on the Doha Work  Programme – Statement by the Director-
General on the Development Assistance Aspects of Cotton 
62. The Chairman  recalled that the mandates for the treatment of this item were contained in 
paragraph 1(b) of the Decision adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004 (WT/L/579), and in 
paragraph 12 of the Hong Kong Ministerial D eclaration (WT/MIN(05)/DEC).  At Hong Kong, 
Ministers had welcomed the efforts of the Direct or-General in the implementation of the mandate, 
pursuant to the 1 August 2004 Decision of the General Council.  They had welcom ed in particular the 
Consultative Framework process initiated by the Dire ctor-General, and had taken note of the Director-
General's Second Periodic Report and the assessme nt of the positive evolution of development 
assistance geared to the cotton sector.  Ministers at  Hong Kong had also reaffirmed the 2004 mandate, 
deepening and extending that mandate in several resp ects.  In inviting the Director-General to furnish 
them with a Third Periodic Report at their next Sess ion, Ministers had asked the Director-General to 
"keep the Sub-Committee on Cotto n fully informed of progress", and to provide "updates, at 
appropriate intervals ..... to the General Council".    
63. The Director-General  recalled that he had last reported on the development assistance aspects 
of cotton at the General Council meeting in May.  Since then, another round of consultations on the 
development assistance aspects of cotton had been he ld on 14 June, and an "International Seminar on 
Cotton", organized by the World Bank, had been hosted by Burkina Faso , in Ouagadougou from 
19-20 June.  Prior to reporting on these developments  and on the way forward as he saw it, he wished 
to situate this particular aspect of cotton in the broader work being undertaken.  As Members knew, 
the cotton dossier had two main pillars:  First wa s the trade negotiations pillar, where cotton was 
addressed "specifically" within the context of the agricultural negotiations, domestic support and 
market access, and where Members had agreed to address it "ambitiously" and "expeditiously".  
Members knew where they were on this aspect – or, more precisely, where they were not.  Second 
was the development assistance pilla r, where the July Framework inst ructed the Secretariat to work 
with the development community on cotton, instruct ed him to consult rele vant organizations, and 
                                                      
7 The Decision was subsequently circulated in document WT/L/651.  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 23 
 
 
instructed Members to work on development issu es multilaterally and bilaterally, asking all Members 
to engage. 
64. He wished to start by urging Members, given th e overall state of the negotiations, that no 
proposal made, whether in respect of the trade or th e development aspect, to be taken off the table.  
Members had to build on what they had alrea dy achieved, and the current suspension of the 
negotiations should not take Members backward, but rath er forward, in terms of the level of ambition.  
The most recent round of consultati ons on the development assistance aspects, held in June, had been 
useful.  At that meeting valuable clarifications  had been given by donors – multilateral as well as 
bilateral – on where the levels of assistance stood.  In addition, important statements had been made 
by recipients, who had stressed th e need for accuracy and systematic verification of the Working 
Table on Cotton Development Assistance, which was the instrument that had been used in these 
consultations.  The seminar in Ouagadougou had al so been helpful for the same reason, and had 
highlighted a number of concerns with this Working Table which he believed Members should 
address.  This was where he would focus his recomme ndations.  The work that had been done so far 
needed to be taken further, both by recipients and donors.  Both had homework to do.  As for the 
recipients, he would ask that the Working Table be sent to the capitals of ea ch African country that 
was a producer of cotton, to examine the accuracy and format of the table and to provide him with the necessary feedback.  A serious revision of the table, or even its reconfiguration, could not take place without such engagement.  The recipients had anot her obligation, which was to continue the process 
of reform of their own domestic cotton sectors.  As for the donors, he would ask that the Working 
Table be kept under constant review for th e purpose of accuracy, and also for purpose of 
distinguishing between actual disbursements and co mmitments.  Members were faced with this 
problem, so common when looking at the public funding of operations, of whether one was talking about commitments or disbursements, and all kne w that there were differences between these two 
stages, and these differences made it clear that the donors had to "operationalize" as quickly as 
possible the programmes that had not yet been star ted.  His last point concerned the issue of a 
mechanism for income/price declines – or an "income safety net" as it was sometimes called.  The 
Hong Kong Declaration urged him to explore th e possibility of establishing such a mechanism 
through multilateral and regional ins titutions.  On this point, the situation remained unchanged from 
his report in May.  Clearly, consensus was lacking for the establishment of such a mechanism.  The 
reasons remained the same and mainly had to do with the discouraging performance of other 
mechanisms for price stabilization and income support.   In this connection, there was one instrument, 
the "International Task Force on Commodity Risk Management", jointly sponsored by the World 
Bank and the FAO, which he believed Members coul d usefully explore to address this issue. 
65. The representative of Benin
, on behalf of the African Group , thanked the Director-General for 
his report, and the bilateral and mu ltilateral partners for their technical and financial assistance for the 
development of the cotton sector in Africa.  The African Group had taken note of the Director-
General's explanations concerning the preparation of a synoptic table of programmes and projects 
relating to the development of the cotton sector and of  his instruction that the figures for the resources 
contained therein be verified.  For their part, the beneficiary countries were in the process of 
conducting this exercise, the sole purpose of which w as to provide the Secretariat with reliable and 
updated information on these projects.  This informat ion should provide a clearer picture of the efforts 
made by the cotton sector development partners in  African countries.  The African Group appreciated 
the information the Director-General would provid e concerning the organization of a seminar on the 
development-assistance aspects of cotton once he had received the updated information on the 
programmes and projects.  The countries concerned hoped that this evaluation seminar would be held 
as quickly as possible and would be broadly attended by the actors involved. 
66. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDCs , said the LDCs appreciated the 
efforts being made to help farmers in the cotton-growing areas and the cotton-exporting LDCs 
affected.  For the LDCs concerned, it was a question of  survival.  Members needed  to tackle the issues 
that really affected the farmers.  The developmen t aspects were important, as each of these countries WT/GC/M/103 
Page 24  
 
needed to develop rapidly.  However, it was more  important that the fundamental issues that had 
given rise to the problem be tackled as well.  He was afraid that the cotton sectors in these countries 
could not survive much longer.  The concerned LDCs  urged that the key issue affecting them – the 
question of subsidies to the cotton growers in  developed countries – be tackled with speed. 
67. The representative of Cuba
 thanked the Director-General for his detailed report.  Cuba noted 
that there had been no major progress in this area, which contradicted the approach agreed on this 
issue, which was to settle it promptly.  As Bangladesh had said, the main element was something that millions of people depended on for their survival .  However, the report did indicate that the 
Secretariat had drafted a Working Table, and th e co-sponsors of the Cotton Initiative needed to 
complete and revise it.  For many developing countries, especially for African countries, this would 
be quite a task, especially in regard to coordination.   Cuba agreed with Benin on the need for effective 
follow up, even if one of the beneficiary countries had been unable to meet this requirement and be 
included in the report.  There was a difference between commitments and actual disbursements, and Cuba called on all donors to close the gap between what was promised and what was delivered as 
much as possible.  Cuba hoped to see figures that reflected real growth. 
68. The representative of Bolivia
 said that countries that depended heavily on single natural 
resources and commodities were seriously harmed by th e huge market distortions that were still being 
allowed.  This created unfair competition and prices that were set in areas outside of these regions.  
Bolivia therefore supported a resolution of the cotton issue in the WTO that would be of interest to 
many developing countries.  This should be one of the main focuses in this time out for reflection. 
69. The General Council took note  of the Director-General's report and of the statements. 
5. Enhanced Integrated Framework – Statement by the Chairman of the Integrated 
Framework Task Force 
70. The Chairman  recalled that Ministers at Hong Kong had reaffirmed their commitment to 
effectively and meaningfully integrate LDCs into  the multilateral trading system, and had recognized 
the urgent need to make the Integrated Framework more effective and timely.  In this connection, 
Ministers had welcomed the establishment of a Ta sk Force by the Integrated Framework Working 
Group, as endorsed by the Integrated Framework Steeri ng Committee.  Ministers had also agreed that 
the Task Force, composed of donor and LDC Me mbers, would provide recommendations to the IF 
Steering Committee by April 2006, and that the enhan ced IF would enter into force no later than 
31 December 2006.  He noted that the report of the Chairman of the Task Force on an enhanced 
Integrated Framework, including recommendations , had been circulated in WT/IFSC/W/15 and 
Corr.1, and that the recommendations had been adopted by the IF Working Group and by the IF 
Steering Committee at their meetings on 5 July.  He invited the Chairman of the IF Task Force to 
inform the General Council of the work that had be en undertaken so far in this regard, and on the 
plans for further work to ensure that the adopt ed recommendations would be operationalized with a 
view to the entry into force of the e nhanced IF no later than 31 December 2006. 
71. Mr Stephenson (Canada), Chairman of the Integrated Framework Task Force , recalled that 
the Integrated Framework had been established a decade earlier to assist the LDCs to assess their 
trade development needs and articulate strategies and priorities to address them.  Since that time, the 
IF had proved a useful framework to marshal the efforts of LDCs, donor counties and international 
institutions in integrating trade into the nationa l development strategies of LDCs and guiding the 
investments of development agencies.  Prior to the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, Finance and 
Development Ministers of the Development Committee had agreed that the IF should be substantially 
enhanced.  This challenge had been assigned by th e Steering Committee and Working Group of the IF 
to a Task Force of least-developed and donor-count ry representatives, which he had had the pleasure 
to Chair.  The Task Force had conducted an intens ive review of the many assessments, evaluations, 
simulations and reports on the operation of the IF, and had benefited from the active participation of  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 25 
 
 
both trade and development agencies, and both capita l and Geneva-based officials.  He wished to 
thank his good friend and colleague the Ambassador  of Zambia for the latter's very effective 
coordination of the LDC participa tion and contribution to the work of the Task Force.  The Task 
Force had also benefited enormously from the cons tructive inputs of the six implementing agencies of 
the IF – the World Bank, UNDP, WTO, UNCTAD, ITC and IMF.  It was clear that these agencies 
were deeply committed to improving the capacity of LD Cs to enjoy the benefits of trade.  He was 
pleased to report that the recommendations of the T ask Force had been formally approved by the IF 
Steering Committee on 5 July.  These recommendations addressed what the Task Force viewed as the 
central weaknesses of the IF:  th e lack of ownership of the IF process by LDCs, donor countries and 
the international institutions;  the poor success rate at moving from the needs assessment process in 
the IF to investments in development project s under the ongoing programmes of donor countries and 
international agencies;  the diffuse r esponsibilities and accountabilities of the governance 
arrangements;  and the lack of adequate and pred ictable funding.  In response to these weaknesses in 
the programme, the Task Force had made several key recommendations:  to provide increased funding 
to build the human and institutional capacity of LD Cs to drive the IF process;  to provide greater 
resources for "first step" projects to implement the fi ndings of the needs assessments and actions plans 
produced under the IF, while retaining the focus on mainstreaming trade into national development 
strategies, which remained the key to success in th e longer term;  to strengt hen and consolidate the 
global management of the programme in an indepe ndent secretariat, administratively housed in the 
WTO;  and to provide a ten-fold increase in  funding for the programme.  In framing these 
recommendations, the Task Force had been faithful to the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness, 
taking a country-driven approach and managing fo r results, including through rigorous monitoring 
and evaluation. 
72. Although the recommendations had now been approve d, the work was not over.  In order to 
put the recommendations into effect, much needed to be done.  There was a need to set up the 
administrative structures, to better define in-count ry operations, and to start the process of securing 
the funding.  To oversee the next steps, the IF Steering Committee had called for the creation of a 
transition team.  Together with the chairs of th e IF Steering Committee and the IF Working Group, he 
had been asked to conduct informal consultations with stakeholders, and to decide on the composition 
of the transition team and the precise tasks to be completed.  He was pleased to report that these 
consultations were well in hand a nd that an initial meeting of the team would be held the following 
day.  In case his report had not already made this clear, he assured Members that the stakeholders in 
the IF – LDCs, donor countries and the implementing ag encies – had been unanimous in the view that 
this work should continue independent of, and despit e, the hiatus in the negotiations.  He wished to 
thank all members of the Task Force, who had wo rked so diligently and passionately, and their 
colleagues in the IF agencies.  It had been a genuine  pleasure and privilege to be part of this work. 
73. The Chairman  thanked all members of the IF Task Fo rce and its Chair for their work and for 
what they had been able to achieve on this very important issue. 
74. All representatives who spoke thanked the Chairman of the IF Task Force for his report. 
75. The representative of Bangladesh , on behalf of the LDCs , said the Chairman of the Task 
Force had followed carefully the instruction in paragraph 49 of the Hong Kong Declaration.  The 
LDCs wished to place on record their sincere gratitude for his co mmitment and leadership in the 
process leading up to the adoption of the Task Fo rce's recommendations.  However, his work was not 
yet over.  At the same time, it was heartening to note that this was one of the few areas where the 
membership had been able to deliver  on schedule.  He also wished to thank the members of the Task 
Force and the Secretariat personnel involved in the pr ocess.  It had taken months to come up with the 
recommendations, on which the donors, as also the six IF agencies, had worked hard with the LDCs.  
While there had been compromises on the way for a ll who had participated, the outcome was one that 
all could live with and help to implement, an d it was time now to move on to the implementation 
phase.  The transition team, and the Working Groups , should begin their work immediately after the WT/GC/M/103 
Page 26  
 
summer break.  All should strive to meaningful ly operationalize the recommendations as soon as 
possible.  The IF had come a long way since its launch in 1997.  Although the primary objective had 
been to assist LDCs enhance their exports, this ha d not been thought through carefully.  However, 
many LDCs had seen potential in it, and had begu n work.  Bangladesh had been among those who 
had held workshops and had put forward a numb er of carefully thought-through projects for 
implementation.  Indeed, without the financing a nd commitment from the development partners, the 
IF would soon have floundered.  Bangladesh was yet to recover from that disappointment, and now 
wished to ensure that other LDCs did not meet the same fate.  In 2001, before the Doha Ministerial, 
another attempt had been made to revive the IF, w ith the so-called Pilot Phase.  Bangladesh had been 
intimately associated with this process.  After Doha , the objective had been to ensure that the supply-
side issues were tackled within the IF.  All had st arted with a great deal of enthusiasm, but it had soon 
become apparent that without commitment from the development partners, the Pilot Phase would also be in trouble.  The lack of systematic, predictabl e and speedy financing of activities identified in the 
Diagnostic Trade Integration Study had emerged as one of the main challenges.  The IF could not 
remain simply a diagnostic tool.  Members had now entered into another phase of the IF.  The 
Enhanced IF was addressing all pillars of the pr ogramme – governance, administration, funding and 
in-country capacity.  The LDCs saw a new commitmen t from their development partners, and greater 
clarity in the objectives and methods of work of the IF.  They were prepared to engage in this new 
process, and hoped that adequate resources would be a llocated by development partners to enable the 
Enhanced IF to take up projects to address real trade-capacity needs of LDCs.  The LDCs had full 
faith in the leadership demonstrated by the Chair of  the IF Task Force, and were ready to work with 
him to operationalize the recommendations.  It was v ital for the credibility of the new programme that 
there be success stories from among the LDCs immediately. 
76. The representative of Benin
, on behalf of the African Group , said the Group wished to thank 
the Chair of the Task Force for his tireless effort s in leading its work.  The African Group supported 
the statement by Bangladesh for the LDCs an d hoped that the next stages required for the 
implementation of the Enhanced IF would be carried out speedily within the timeframe established, so 
as to enable the LDCs to ind eed become integrated into th e international trading system. 
77. The representative of Zambia  associated his delegation with the statement by Bangladesh for 
the LDCs.  He had been privileged to serve on the Task Force, all the members of which had worked 
hard to come up with the report and recommendations just presented.  Zambia wished to thank all of 
its development partners for the work they had b een doing, in terms of financial contributions, and 
also to thank the various international organizations  that had been involved, especially those involved 
in providing technical assistance.  Zambia hoped th at this kind of coopera tion would continue.  His 
country attached great importance to the objectives of  the IF, and hoped that the Enhanced IF would 
really be enhanced in terms of the provision of fi nancial resources and facilitating early disbursement 
of resources.  His delegation recognized that one of the factors that would make the Enhanced IF 
deliver on its objectives was national ownership.  Za mbia was committed to this and, to indicate its 
seriousness, had with its delegation a high-powered te am of stakeholders from its capital.  The latter 
came from the Government, the NGOs, the private sect or and the university.  Zambia recognized that 
the private sector was the engine for economic development, hence the involvement of these individuals in the IF.  He wished to assure all that Zambia would continue to play its part to ensure 
that the Enhanced IF, with the support of Zambia's  development partners, became a real beacon for 
development. 
78. The representative of the European Communities
 welcomed the report on the successful work 
of the Task Force and congratulated its Chair fo r the latter's very effective chairmanship and 
leadership of the process.  At the same time, the Task Force had been  a team effort, in which a very 
important and crucial contribution had been made by the LDCs and also the six IF agencies.  The 
Task Force had set out three inter-connected elemen ts on which the Enhanced IF would be built – a 
stronger in-country operation, including a broader sc ope for projects supported directly under the IF;  
a beefed-up, but hopefully not over-bureaucratic, ce ntral decision-making and management structure;   WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 27 
 
 
and increased, more predictable and extra funding.   On this last element, the EU – both the 
Commission and individual member States – would continue to play their part.  This work was, of course, not yet over, and in some respects, a more  difficult and challenging stage was now starting.  
He confirmed the Communities' full commitment to th e work to be undertaken by the transition team, 
which would start work the following day.  As has been the case up to now, success would depend on 
all the relevant actors – donors, LDCs and agencies – c ontinuing to work effectively together to flesh 
out the operational details and take the necessary act ion so as to get the Enhanced IF up and running 
as soon as possible.  He reiterated what the EC Tr ade Commissioner had said at the informal meeting 
of the TNC on 24 July, that LDCs should not be the victim of the breakdown of the Doha 
negotiations.  This was one important sector  where Members could and would press ahead. 
79. The representative of the United States
 expressed appreciation for the Task Force Chair's 
leadership of the IF Task Force and other Member s' constructive joint efforts to enhance the IF.  
Significant work remained to iron-out the details of  an Enhanced IF.  His delegation looked forward 
to participating actively in that effort, starting the following day.  It was important to continue this 
work in order to meet the target of entry into force by the end of 2006. 
80. The representative of Rwanda  said her delegation endorsed the statement by Bangladesh for 
the LDCs.  Rwanda had been privilege d to serve on the IF Task Force, and it was in this regard that 
she wished to pay tribute to its Chair for the latte r's personal involvement in the work of the Task 
Force and his great leadership, which had made the wo rk much easier.  She also wished to thank the 
Chairs of the other groups that had worked on th e recommendations of the Enhanced IF – the IF 
Working Group and the Steering Committee – as well as all the donors, agencies and LDCs that had 
worked on this team. 
81. The representative of Cambodia  associated his delegation with the statement by Bangladesh 
for the LDCs and joined others in thanking an d congratulating both the T ask Force Chair for his 
leadership as well as all the members of the T ask Force for their work.  Cambodia had had the 
privilege to serve as a pilot country in 2001 for th e IF and had been held up as one of the success 
stories in the IF's implementation.  However, this success story had also proven that there were other 
things that needed to be done.  The diagnosis ha d been made and the medicine prescribed, but the 
medicine had not been forthcoming.  The second phase of the IF, which was the Enhanced IF, was 
expected to provide LDCs with the outcome they  were hoping for – to help them with the supply 
capacity they had been seeking for many years and the lack of which was the main handicap of all 
developing countries, especially the LDCs.  The LDCs were therefore placing their hopes on the 
successful funding of this second part of the IF an d counted on all developm ent partners and donors to 
join hands in this endeavour. 
82. The General Council took note  of the report and of the statements. 
6. Aid for Trade 
(a) Report of the Task Force established pursuant to Paragraph 57 of the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration 
(b) Statement by the Director-General  
83. The Chairman  recalled that in paragraph 57 of th e Hong Kong Declaration, Ministers had 
invited the Director-General to create a Task Force that would provide recommendations to the 
General Council, by July 2006, on how to operati onalize Aid for Trade, and on how Aid for Trade 
might contribute most effectively to the development dimension of the DDA.  Ministers had also 
invited the Director-General to consult with Members as well as with the IMF and World Bank, 
relevant international organizati ons and the regional development ba nks with a view to reporting to 
the General Council on appropriate mechanisms to secure additional financial resources for Aid for WT/GC/M/103 
Page 28  
 
Trade, where appropriate through grants and confessi onal loans.  He invited Mrs Horn Af Rantzien 
(Sweden), Chairperson of the Task Force, to repor t on the work of undertaken by the Task Force. 
84. Mrs Horn Af Rantzien (Sweden), Chairperson the Task Force
, said she was pleased to report 
that the Aid for Trade Task Force had conclude d its work and had reached a consensus on the 
recommendations that were being circul ated that day (document WT/AFT/1).8   A s  a l l  k n e w ,  
Ministers in Hong Kong asked the Director-G eneral to create a Task Force to provide 
recommendations to the General Council by July on  how Aid for Trade should be "operationalized" 
and how it might contribute most effectively to th e development dimension of the DDA.  The present 
meeting was neither the time nor the place to try to summarize the recommendations, but she wished 
to say a few words about how the Task Force had reached its conclusions and what these might mean 
in terms of Members' shared goal of advancing Aid fo r Trade.  First, she knew she spoke on behalf of 
all the Task Force members in saying that an im portant objective had been to make this process as 
transparent and inclusive as possible.  Alt ogether, the Task Force had received 22 written 
contributions – from Task Force members themse lves, from other Members, and from relevant 
international and regional agencies – all of which ha d been circulated and c ould be consulted on the 
Members' website.  She had conducted a large numb er of consultations w ith regional groups and 
smaller groups of Members, as well as with individu al Members, because she had felt it important to 
hear Members' ideas and concerns directly, in add ition to the very effective representation that had 
been provided by the regional coordinators on the T ask Force.  She had also participated, along with 
other Task Force members, in many Aid-for-Trade events outside the WTO which had given experts, 
officials, NGOs, academics and the private sector an opportunity to share their insights.  Also, on 
12 June, informal open-ende d consultations had been held with all Members, which had generated a 
valuable dialogue on many of the key issues in play.  She had found this dialogue extremely helpful, and much of the information exchanged had found its way, in one form or another, into the 
recommendations.  Second, she wished to stress th at these recommendations represented an important 
step, but only a first step, in a longer-term process of implementing Aid for Trade.  For one thing, they 
crucially depended on the Director-General conti nuing his consultations on "appropriate mechanisms 
to secure additional financial resources for Aid fo r Trade".  More broadly, they also critically 
depended on the Director-General's coherence manda te and his consultations with the international 
financial institutions, the regional development banks, and other impor tant actors, as all of these 
would be important implementing partners, and as Aid for Trade would require many different 
agencies and actors working together more coherently  – the details of which were explained in the 
report.  There had also been a clear consensus in the Task Force that Aid for Trade was important in 
its own right, and that it should m ove forward expeditiously despite the current difficulties in the 
Round.  At the same time, Members had been equally  clear that Aid for Trade was not – and could not 
be – a substitute for the development benefits that  would flow from a successful Doha Round, and 
that the successful conclusion of th e Round would itself give rise to new Aid-for-Trade needs that had 
to be assessed and addressed at that time.  Third, she wished to emphasize that these 
recommendations were a faithful representation of the consensus that had emerged in the Task Force 
over the five months its members had worked togeth er.  It was not a negotiated text, and had never 
been intended to be one, but it did show that th ere was a shared commitment to move forward with 
the next steps and to deliver on th is important part of the Hong Kong mandate.  Th is was an important 
and positive message – one that was particularly n eeded at this challenging moment for the world 
trading system.  She sincerely thanked her fellow Task Force members.  Their hard work, patience 
and, most importantly, unwavering commitment to this process had made these recommendations possible. 
85. The Chairman
 thanked the Chair and all members of the Task Force for their commendable 
efforts over the past months to develop the full ra nge of recommendations that had just been presented 
for the consideration of the General Council.  He al so wished to thank them  for their commitment to 
meeting the end-of-July deadline for the presenta tion of these recommendations, as instructed by 
                                                      
8 The full text of the statement was subsequently circulated in document JOB(06)/234.  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 29 
 
 
Ministers in Hong Kong.  The Task Force had been very thorough in its repor t, and had submitted for 
the General Council's consideration a range of reco mmendations in each of th e areas of its mandate, 
namely, on how to operationalize Aid For Trade and on how it might contribute most effectively to the development dimension of the DDA.  It had also  suggested, at the end of its report, a range of 
measures for Members, the Director-General, as well as other actors in this field to consider with 
regard to the next steps, in order to ensure an  adequate and holistic follow-up to the report and its 
recommendations.  However, the membership as a w hole had only just that day received the Task 
Force's report, and needed adequate time to review it before considering the appropriate follow-up to 
be given to it.  In the light of this, he suggested  that, following the presenta tion of the report at the 
present meeting, Members revert to it at the Counc il's next meeting, scheduled for October, to 
consider the follow-up to the report and its recommenda tions.  He then invited the Director-General to 
update the Council on his work in the area of Aid for Trade. 
86. The Director-General
 said that as Members had just hear d from the Chair of the Task Force 
on the outcome of its work on Aid for Trade, the extensive consultations she had presided over had 
resulted in the recommendations before the Genera l Council, in line with the mandate given by 
Ministers in Hong Kong.  He wished to thank Mrs Horn Af Rantzien, who had proved to be a 
formidable Chair on this occasion.  The first conclusi on, for him at least, was that he had chosen the 
right Chair for this Task Force, which a posteriori was something one always had to check.  He also 
wished to thank the members of th e Task Force for their excellent wo rk.  For his part, he had been 
given a mandate in Hong Kong to consult with Members, the IMF and World Bank, relevant 
international organizations and th e regional development banks on a ppropriate mechanisms to secure 
additional financial resources for Aid for Trade.  Since the beginning of 2006, he had had the 
opportunity to consult and engage broadly with, among others, the IMF, the World Bank, UNCTAD, 
ITC, UNDP, the three regional banks – Inter Americ an Development Bank, As ian Development Bank 
and African Development Bank, b ilateral donors – US, UK, Japan, EC, Canada – and major bilateral 
development agencies – Millennium Challenge Co rporation and USAID – on issues related to 
additionality of financial resources and predictability of these resources.  He wished to note at the 
outset that these consultations were by no means over,  and that therefore the present intervention was 
intended to provide Members with an overview of hi s activities thus far, pending the report he would 
make when the consultations were finalized.  In this  respect, he wished to note that, as part of this 
mandate, in September he would be participating at the forthcom ing autumn meetings of the WB/IMF 
in Singapore.   
87. On the issue of additionality, he had focussed  his consultations on securing clarification from 
donors on the Aid-for-Trade pledges they had made in 2005 at the G8 summit at Gleneagles and during the Hong Kong Ministerial.  Among the issues on which he had sought clarification were how 
they intended to address the issue of additionality, wh at they meant in their pledges, the baseline they 
intended to use to measure additionality, the criteria they would use to decide what would be grants 
and what would be soft loans, the procedures to be adopted for disbursing these Aid-for -Trade funds 
and whether, on the basis of this, one could anno unce a target Aid-for-Trade figure by the end of 
2006.  All this work was in progress.  On the issu e of predictability, which developing countries had 
highlighted as important, his consultations thus far indicated there would only be clarity on this once 
there was a better understanding of what was being done  at present, what was planned for the future 
according to the methods just mentioned, and the discussion needed on the most appropriate way to 
monitor Aid-for-Trade delivery and results.  In vi ew of the recent developments in the DDA, he 
thought it proper to conclude by saying something abut how he saw the suspension of the negotiations 
impacting on the Aid-for-Trade agenda.  The reality Members had to face was that Aid for Trade was 
an important link between a developing country's trade policy and trade opening, whether one worked 
with the existing rules or with new rules and para meters that would result from the conclusion of the 
DDA.  Therefore, pending further progress in the ne gotiations, the rationale fo r continuing to work on 
Aid for Trade remained valid.  He wished to note the very warm response he had received thus far 
from all partners on this subject, a nd hoped that the time-out in the ne gotiations would come to an end WT/GC/M/103 
Page 30  
 
sooner rather than later, so that a robust Aid -for-Trade package, which was necessary, would be 
available in due time. 
88. All representatives who spoke thanked the Chairp erson of the Task Force for her report and 
for her leadership and commitment in steering the group's work, and the Director-General for his 
efforts in the area of Aid for Trade.  They also thanked the Task Force members and the Secretariat 
for their work on this issue. 
89. The representative of Bangladesh
, on behalf of the LDCs , said the Task Force Chair had 
followed carefully the deadlines contained in paragr aph 57 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  
The LDCs commended her, as well as the members of  the Task Force and the WTO team working 
with her, for their hard work.  The aim of the Ai d-For-Trade initiative, from the LDCs' perspective, 
was to help them expand their exports.  This shou ld stimulate a supply-side response and create or 
strengthen trade-related infrastructure as well as trade-supporting institutions, so that LDCs could 
produce and market their products competitively.  On ly when LDCs were enabled to export more 
could they hope to be meaningfully integrated into the multilateral trading system and benefit from 
this aspect of the process of globalization.  Regard ing the recommendations of the Task Force, it was 
difficult to produce a text that was acceptable to all.  The LDCs complimented the Chair for her 
efforts in this direction.  The recommendations c ontained a number of useful suggestions, particularly 
relating to supply-side issues and accountability of the Aid-for-Trade mechanism.  They highlighted 
the challenges and gaps in the inte gration of trade into development strategies.  The LDCs, on their 
part, had been trying to address some of the challenges through the IF.  Given the experience of the IF, it had been found that such integration was not  easy.  The hard reality was that progress in the 
internalization of needs expressed in the IF DT IS Action Matrices into assistance programmes of 
development partners was uncertain.  Action was also required from the development partners to 
integrate trade more effectively in their aid progr amming as an additionality.  Any text the Members 
prepared would be validated only through its appli cation.  There was a need to ensure that the 
recommendations were operationalized. 
90. The key element now was the mobilization of  resources.  The mechanism for mobilizing 
additional financing had been left to the good offices of the Director-General.  The LDCs thanked the 
Director-General for his efforts in securing funding and advancing th e concept of additionality of 
resources.  In time, further work would be required to clarify the precise scope, financing, and mechanisms to deliver resources, and the LDCs looked forward to the Director-General's report in the 
autumn.  He wished to share the LDCs' views on th e question of implementation.  Implementation of 
Aid-for-Trade projects was being vested with the country-based processes, such as the PRSP or 
Consultative Group or Roundtable.  IF experience had demonstrated that, for most LDCs, such 
processes had not been successful in securing funding for projects or activities recommended by the 
DTIS.  There, trade competed with other programmes of the government.  Even if integrated into the 
PRSP, trade-related issues were unlikely to get the topmost attention of the government.  There was a 
need for a way out of this if Aid for Trade were to be really meaningful.  There was one other area of 
vital importance to the LDCs.  By its very archit ecture, even an enhanced IF could only fund small-
scale projects.  The LDCs needed access to large-scale financing to improve productive capacity for 
trade.  The central theme of the UNCTAD LDC Re port 2006 was that productive capacities should be 
at the heart of development and poverty-reduction policies.  The IF was exclusively for LDCs, but 
Aid for Trade was for all developing countries.  It w as more extensive than the IF.  For the LDCs, Aid 
for Trade could pick up where the Enhanced IF stoppe d.  It was this complementarity that would be 
most valuable for the LDCs.  Ther efore, they visualized the Aid -for-Trade initiative as a vehicle to 
cater to these needs.  At the sa me time, they wished to reiterate that Aid for Trade should be 
additional, predictable and sustainable and should be provided in grant form to the LDCs and IDA-
only countries. 
91. The representative of Mauritius
 said that at least one opportunity had not been missed and one 
deadline had been met.  Members should therefore not only celebrate this achievement but harvest  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 31 
 
 
and implement it as soon as possible.  There had been a number of meaningful exchanges and 
interaction among the Task Force members themselv es and with a number of other stakeholders, both 
bilateral and multilateral, on the whole issue of devel opment corporation as it related to Aid for Trade.  
This had been a great learning experience and the T ask Force had received many suggestions.  In fact, 
the ACP and the African Union had flooded the Task Force Chair with many amendments and a lot of 
suggestions, but she had nevertheless been able to produce a very balanced report that had secured the 
consensus of the group.  As she had said, this w as not a negotiated text but a consensual one.  The 
report was balanced and the ACP could accept it.  It contained a set of objectives or principles, it 
identified gaps, it set targets and it also ensured certain commitments from other partners to operationalize Aid for Trade.  Thus, there was now an architecture for the operationalization of Aid 
for Trade.  Much of the work would begin now, and much of this would depend on the donor 
community – how and whether they committed additiona l resources, whether they turned pledges into 
deliverable resources, and how far they used the Aid-for-Trade architecture as a guiding principle to deliver on aid for trade.  At the same time, much would also depend on recipient countries – how far they were able to mainstream aid for trade in their development strategies, in their PRSPs or in other 
restructuring programmes they undertook.  Also impor tant would be how far th ey were able to bring 
about coherence between the different stakeholders at  the domestic or local level in order to have a 
coherent approach to Aid for Trade.  Mauritius ha d already moved on this issue, and had already put 
forward an ambitious restructuring plan that m oved away from the traditional paradigm into the 
reform process that would set its economy on a global competitiveness dimension.  Thus, his country welcomed the Task Force's report and recommendations.  The test now was its implementation, and 
the sooner this was done the better. 
92. The representative of Benin
, on behalf of the African Group , said the Group appreciated the 
efforts of the Director-General to place Aid for Tr ade on an operational basis.  Those efforts had led 
to the recommendations submitted at the present mee ting.  The African Group wished to emphasize 
that once the recommendations on Aid for Trade had been adopted by the General Council, it was 
important that prompt, consistent and sustained action be taken to implement them effectively.  It was 
the expectation of the African Group that Aid for Tr ade resources would be additional, substantial, 
predictable, sustainable and granted in the form of donations.  The African Group wished to stress 
once again the need for a mechanism to be put in place that would enable these resources to be 
mobilized, so as to ensure the implementation of ac tivities to promote international trade, aimed, in 
particular, at building supply-side capacity, deve loping production infrastructures, improving human 
and institutional capacities and assessing adjustment costs. 
93. The representative of Japan  said that the recommendations of the Task Force provided good 
food for thought and an excellent basis for future discussion by Members which his delegation looked forward to.  Japan continued to believe that Aid for Trade was an important element of the DDA and 
would work closely with others on it. 
94. The representative of the European Communities
 said the Community had participated 
actively in the Task Force and endorsed its reco mmendations.  These pointed the way ahead towards 
getting the most for Aid for Trade out of overall increases in overseas development assistance, both in 
terms of quality and quantity.  All countries – bo th donors and beneficiaries – and actors such as 
development agencies had an important role to play.  The European Commission and its member 
States were fully committed to playing their part.  Already in parallel to the DDA, the EU had been 
working hard to strengthen its own support for deve loping countries and LDCs in the area of trade-
related assistance, capacity building and broader aid fo r trade.  Collectively, it had pledged a total of 
2 billion euros by 2010, which was 700 million euro s more than the present expenditure.  Support for 
trade-related infrastructure would come on top of th at.  Regardless of the delay in the DDA, the EU 
would push ahead with its own commitment to Aid fo r Trade.  It welcomed indications from other 
important donors, such as the US and Japan, that they  also still intended to deliver on the pledges they 
had made the previous year.  The EU strongly su pported vigorous work at the multilateral level to 
build on the Task Force's recommendations.  It was important for developing countries, and especially WT/GC/M/103 
Page 32  
 
the LDCs and others less well-placed to take advantage of the opportuni ties of international trade, to 
know that they would continue to receive the Ai d-for-Trade support they needed.  The poorest and 
more marginalized among the Members should not be  expected to pay the price for the current 
inability of the major trading countries to agree on the way forward in the DDA. 
95. The representative of the United States
 said it had been an enormous and complicated task to 
develop recommendations on how best to operationalize Aid for Trade.  The Task Force's leadership 
had enabled Members to complete this task with  a high-quality product and on time.  His delegation 
had been very impressed by the conscientious, pe rsonal involvement of so many Ambassadors – both 
donors and recipients.  This involvement was a signal of the importance all attached to this project.  
His delegation agreed that the rationale to continue to work on Aid for Trade existed regardless of the 
outcome of the Round, although the outcome of  the DDA would provide additional reasons and 
directions for Aid-for-Trade efforts.  The United St ates looked forward to continuing to work with the 
Director-General on his mandate to identify appropriate resources for Aid for Trade. 
96. The representative of Zambia  said that if the Task Force had finished its work in good time, it 
was thanks to its Chair's leadership.  Zambia wi shed also to thank the Director-General for his 
commitment to Aid for Trade.  The Aid-for-Tra de initiative was ambitious.  The Task Force had 
worked hard to come up with what Zambia c onsidered were important  recommendations.  His 
delegation, and those of the LDCs, were very excited about the Aid-fo r-Trade initiative.  As the Task 
Force Chair had noted, these countries hoped that Ai d for Trade would not be a substitute for any 
current development aid or a repackaging of the latt er, but that Aid for Trade would be an important 
additionality to existing development aid.  Zambia sincerely thanked those countries who had already 
made financial pledges to the Aid-for-Trade progr amme, as well as those who were intending to make 
pledges and contributions to the Aid-for-Trade in itiative.  His country now looked forward to the 
operationalization of Aid for Trade in a manner that  would see the effective and positive integration 
of developing countries, and especially the LDCs, into the world trading system. 
97. The representative of Switzerland  said the Task Force's report gave a useful outline of the 
content of the Aid-for-Trade initiative.  Althou gh Switzerland had not been represented on the Task 
Force, it considered that the prop osed recommendations pointed in the right direction.  It welcomed 
the desire to anchor this initiative in the prin ciples of aid effectiveness and to place emphasis on 
ownership by the partner countries through the main streaming of trade into national development 
strategies.  Switzerland also welcomed the recomme ndation to employ, as far as possible, the existing 
structures at the local, regional and global levels in the tasks of identifying needs, funding and 
monitoring.  In this connection, it supported the pr oposal to explore the possibility of extending to the 
low-income countries an approach similar to that of th e Integrated Framework.  It also considered that 
the institutional arrangements of the strengthened In tegrated Framework were appropriate for dealing 
with countries other than the LDCs.  Switzerland w as also in favour of taking the regional dimension 
more fully into account in the analysis of developi ng countries' needs, and awaited with interest the 
result of the studies that would be presented at the meeting of the United Nations Development 
Committee in December.  It was aware that much remained to be done to operationalize the Task 
Force's recommendations.  Subjects such as the prio ritization of recommendations, timing, monitoring 
and funding required further study.  Switzerland, as an interested party, was ready to make its 
contribution to this effort.  Having said this, his dele gation wished to reiterate briefly the tenor of the 
statement it had made under Agenda item 1 of the pr esent meeting, namely, that the WTO needed to 
refocus on what it did best, i.e. to promote trade liberalization by means of legally binding 
agreements.  Accordingly, Aid for Trade had to be conceived as a complementary element peripheral 
to the core WTO Agreements. 
98. The representative of Kenya  said his delegation had thought th at a decision would be taken on 
this item at the present meeting, and wished to comme nt on several areas of the Task Force's report.  
The first concerned financing, where Kenya saw so me very good developments, such as that the 
Director-General would be seeking confirmation on the availability of funds.  However, like  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 33 
 
 
Bangladesh, his delegation felt that it was the form in  which the funds would come that would ensure 
that Aid for Trade was effective.  This point had to be borne in mind.  Kenya took note that this programme would be open to all developing countr ies, but felt that one should start with those 
countries who really needed and deserved help before  moving on to others.  His last point concerned 
how Aid for Trade could contribute to the devel opment through increasing trade opportunities.  That 
was a very good point, but it was also important how the beneficiaries of Aid for Trade would make 
the best use of Aid for Trade in order to make u se of those trade opportunities.  Finally, Kenya had a 
problem with the last sentence of paragraph (g) and the last bullet of paragraph (h) of the report, but 
perhaps this could be taken up in October. 
99. The Chairman
 confirmed that, as he had said at the outset of this item, his intention was to 
revert to the report at the Council's next meeting. 
100. The representative of India  said the finalisation of the Task Force's report on Aid for Trade 
was a matter of great satisfaction, especially as it came at an otherwise grim time.  The report reflected the views, concerns and expectations of all interests and therefore constituted an excellent 
blueprint for the operationalization of this important  initiative.  While all members of the Task Force 
had contributed to this, the most important c ontribution had been by its Chair, who deserved 
Members' gratitude for her leadership and commitmen t.  India also welcomed the Director-General's 
report on his consultations.  The key to the succes s of the Aid-for-Trade initiative was additionality 
and predictability of fund ing, and he was especially pleased that these had figured prominently in the 
Director-General's consultations.  India looked forwar d to an early conclusion of those consultations 
so that a robust Aid-for-Trade package could be implemented at the earliest. 
101. The representative of Nicaragua
 said the Task Force had done an excellent job, and although 
her delegation would make more extensive and specif ic comments in the near future, it wished at the 
present time to highlight certain aspects of the r ecommendations that it considered important.  First, 
both the objectives and guiding principles set out in the report corresponded to what the developing countries expected from Aid for Trade.  Regarding the recommendations on how to operationalize this 
aid, Nicaragua was pleased to note that they t ook account of the specific needs of the IDA-only 
countries.  It welcomed the fact that the Task  Force placed emphasis on national mechanisms and 
recommended strengthening existing mechanisms at th e regional and global levels before analyzing 
the need to establish new mechanisms.  With regard  to the monitoring and evaluation mechanism, her 
delegation wished to thank the Task Force for rec ognizing the important role that could be played by 
Trade Policy Reviews.  In Nicaragua's opinion, th e Trade Policy Review Body was one of the most 
valuable WTO organs, and it was convinced that th e broadening of the Trade Policy Review Body's 
mandate could contribute to improving the coherence and, above all, the efficiency of the different 
agencies with trade and development related functions .  Nicaragua appealed to all the bilateral and 
multilateral donors to implement the recommendations c ontained in the report at the earliest.  In this 
connection, Nicaragua shared the views expressed by the Chairperson of the Task Force regarding the 
urgent need for financial resources, and thanke d the Director-General for all his efforts. 
102. The representative of Honduras
 thanked the Task Force for its report on this issue which was 
of paramount importance.  The content of the report and the mandate were also contained in 
paragraph 57 of the Hong Kong Declaration.  H onduras wished to highlight that the drafting and 
preparation of the report had been made possible th anks to the Task Force Chair's open-door policy, 
and her policy of transparency, and his delegation wish ed to thank her also for her leadership in the 
whole process.  Aid for Trade had to aim at creati ng new capacities and, in so me cases, possibilities to 
strengthen infrastructure that contributed to increasing trade flows.  This aid had to be channelled to 
those Members who most needed it and whose particip ation in world trade was very small.  It was 
essential to identify from the very outset, the group of countries who would benefit from Aid for Trade, taking into account, of course, the recommendations by the IMF and the World Bank.  On the 
issue of financing, it would be important to evaluate  which funds were available, and in this regard 
promises had been made to increase the amounts for 2010.  However, Honduras considered that this WT/GC/M/103 
Page 34  
 
would have to take into account  inflation and the cost of energy, which could perhaps reduce the 
amounts promised and could also jeopardise the availab ility of such funds.  This would also have an 
effect on the future of such projects.  Regardi ng the operationalization of Aid for Trade – in other 
words, how to strengthen the demand side – Hondur as wished to stress the importance of recipient 
countries owning their own projects and therefore st rengthening their development strategies.  Such 
support would have to be granted to ensure that this goal was reached.  Honduras also supported that 
those countries that were not LDCs and countries that  received financing from the IMF would also be 
part of this project, and that this be taken into account. 
103. The representative of Guatemala
 said his delegation was very pleased to see the efforts made 
to give effect to recommendations on Aid for Trade aimed at benefiting all developing countries.  This 
was undoubtedly a sphere in which the WTO could de liver significant results, by operationalizing aid 
and turning it into an effective contribution as part  of the development dimension of the multilateral 
trading system.  Guatemala endorsed the rationale in  the Task Force report that aid should be geared 
towards increasing the exports of goods and services of developing countries, thus enhancing their 
participation and integration in the multilateral trading system.  This was Guatemala's overriding 
objective as a small, vulnerable economy in the proceedi ngs of this organization.  It agreed with the 
approach set out, in particular regarding the defin ition of a scope broad enough to reflect the diverse 
needs identified by all the developing countries.  De veloping countries would certainly be faced with 
challenges, not only as beneficiaries of such aid, but  also as administrators in their respective national 
contexts, and they would have to work efficiently  in implementing the Aid-for-Trade programmes in a 
comprehensive manner consistent with their devel opment strategies.  Coordination and evaluation at 
the national, regional and internati onal levels were therefore very important components – if not the 
cornerstone – of the Aid-for-Trade mechanism.  Hi s delegation again thanked the Task Force for its 
report and the Director-General for his statement, and emphasized its support for the steps that would 
have to be taken across all areas pursuant to the recommendations in the report. 
104. The representative of China  thanked the Director-General for his efforts to secure additional 
financial resources for Aid for Trade.  This successful story was not of minor significance, as it 
showed that with Members' joint effort under a st rong Chair, the WTO was still able to achieve its 
objectives.  In the past several months the Aid for Trade Task Force under the excellent leadership of 
Mrs Horn, and through eight rounds of highly eff ective discussions, had finalized its report and drawn 
up its recommendations.  The report represented the co llective wisdom and hard work of all parties 
involved, provided a thorough analysis of the i ssues and put forward recommendations on how to 
operationalize the Aid for Trade work more effectivel y.  Aid for Trade was intended to ensure that 
developing-country Members, particularly LDCs, could benefit from the increased trading opportunities under the multilateral trading system.  It was closely related to the growth, poverty 
reduction and economic development aims of those Members, and was therefore indispensable to the development dimension of the DDA.  It was also  consistent with the UN Millennium Development 
Goals.  Success in the Aid for Trade work depended on  the determination and continuous efforts of all 
stakeholders.  What the Task Force had done was the first step towards achieving Members' 
objectives.  Members should keep the momentum and take up the critical task of operationalizing the 
recommendations set out in the document.  To th is end, his delegation encouraged all parties 
concerned to make further efforts under the guidance of the spirit established in this document.  China 
fully shared the statement by th e Task Force Chair that Aid for Trade stood on its own and should be 
implemented as soon as possible. 
105. The representative of Bolivia
 said that the report included important recommendations that 
constituted a solid basis on which to structure the discussions that could be held, as the Task Force 
itself had suggested, once the ad hoc consultative group was established.  It was her delegation's 
understanding that the Director-General would initiate talks, inter alia , with relevant agencies and 
Bretton Woods bodies, although some countries, like Bolivia, avoided some of these institutions as 
much as possible owing to the conditionalities they att ached to technical and other assistance.  At the 
same time, Bolivia would be grateful if, in the cour se of efforts to secure an effective commitment by  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 35 
 
 
donors and agencies, account was taken of certain cons iderations which, from Bolivia's point of view, 
could give an impetus to the work.  Her delegation had in mind points that could be specified in more 
detail at the next meeting of the Task Force in Oc tober and at other releva nt meetings, and included 
such matters as:  (i) Strengthening South-South cooperation, on the understanding that a developing 
country's needs could be better met by personnel from countries that  had overcome similar difficulties 
– Bolivia hoped that the revised offers by indus trialized countries would take this into account.  
(ii) Making sure that the majority of jobs generate d by future Aid-for-Trade projects went to nationals 
of the country in which the projects were carried out, without forgetting the increased possibility of 
employing other citizens of developing countries.  ( iii) Taking into account the fact that the resources 
obtained should, as a matter of priority, benefit th e aid-requesting countries, a determining factor 
would be to define the maximum pe rcentage amount of aid to be returned to the donors, i.e. in the 
form of wages, equipment and other administrative co sts.  By way of an initial approximation, Bolivia 
would suggest the figure of ten per cent.  (iv) In the context of the commitments which some 
developing countries were prepared to make in  this Round, Aid for Trade should include the 
requirement to protect and consolidate certain polic y spaces, such as public health, although it was of 
course essential also to create the necessary cond itions for enhancing deve loping countries' supply-
side capacity.  (v) At the same time, it would be d esirable to establish salary ceilings for the personnel 
helping the recipients in these areas.  To illustra te this point, she said that the minimum wage in 
Bolivia up to a short time earlier had been $50 per month, and had increased recently.  A specific multiple of the minimum wage should be used to  determine the salary level of outside persons 
engaged to provide beneficiaries with Aid for Trad e, so as to avoid excessive disparities.  (vi) The 
Task Force's recommendations had been set out in adequate detail, but Bolivia wished to draw 
attention to a number of points.  For example, Bolivia  wished to see the inclusion of the possibility of 
promoting public-sector networking, in addition to p ublic-private sector networking.  This was just a 
small, but important, example of the points her dele gation wished to raise at the appropriate time.  
(vii) Civil society played a significant role in c ountries like Bolivia, and her country would like that 
role to be expressly mentioned throughout the Aid- for-Trade document.  In particular, it could be 
highlighted in the section on monitoring of Aid for Trade.  No conditionality should be attached to 
Aid for Trade, and at the same time it should resp ond to the different trade policies of Members and 
not merely serve as a palliative for th e costs of liberalization, the aim being to achieve fair trade. 
106.  The representative of Colombia
 said that her delegation had b een able to participate in the 
work of this group since February, when the Dir ector-General had announced its establishment.  It 
had been an honour for Colombia to participate in  this group, and it had been able to share in a 
number of positive experiences.  As testimony of this , she wished to draw attention not only to the 
quality of the result presented, but also to the good fortune of having a chairperson who had shown 
outstanding qualities and fair-mindedness in listening to all the points of view presented.  The latter 
had met many delegations, accepted many invitations, visited UNCTAD, been in contact with the 
Commonwealth, and had attended the Development Committee meeting in New York, where she had 
vigorously argued the case for Aid for Trade.  Sec ond, the broad representativeness of this group had 
enhanced the discussions, which had been genera lly reflected in the documents subsequently 
circulated.  Another positive point was all the organi zations that participated in Aid for Trade.  The 
great value of this project was the call for coherence.   This could be seen in two ways.  First, this 
applied at the international level, as it involved no t only the Task Force, but also the international 
organizations concerned with Aid for Trade, as well as the regional banks.  This had led to a 
realization of the difficulty of defining a common obj ective.  Colombia had come to appreciate in the 
course of this process that trade was not the only route to development and that there were many 
bodies in the world that could take on responsibility for the management of such aid – hence, the 
inadvisability of creating more bureaucracy or more sp ecialized funds.  Second, at the domestic level, 
the Task Force called on domestic authorities concerne d with development and ai d to coordinate their 
activities so as to define the role of trade in de velopment.  This was based on the understanding that 
trade, as a contribution to development and growth , was not solely an exogenous matter, and this 
implied that access to aid for trade required coordi nation by the domestic authorities.  His delegation 
attached the greatest importance to this challenge and the call that Members should improve the use of WT/GC/M/103 
Page 36  
 
aid.  On the basis of the work carried out, Colo mbia had reached the following conclusions:  Latin 
America was the area that received the least aid fo r trade, although her dele gation believed that after 
the work that had been done, this trend would be  reversed.  Latin America was a progressive area and 
most of the countries of Latin America believed in the multilateral trading system.  Her delegation had 
also learned that it was possible to reach sensible agre ements in the WTO.  This did not mean that all 
the problems of the world could be settled here, but it did mean that if a Member believed in trade, 
required support and had domestically structured pr ojects that were credible to donors and – perhaps 
the most important factor – that could readily be m onitored, it could take advantage of this system.  
She wished to congratulate the Task Force, to th ank it for its contributions and its lessons, and to 
thank Mrs Horn, who would undoubtedly had an important role in the future in helping to clarify the 
use of this instrument.  It was clear that the doc ument produced by the Task Force was not perfect, but 
it was the best that could be achieved and, as Mauritius had said, it was to be hoped that the 
recommendations agreed would be implemented as soon as possible. 
107. The representative of Ecuador
 said his delegation had read the task Force's report with great 
interest, had forwarded it to its capital for analysis  and would shortly offer its comments.  However, 
Ecuador wished to emphasize that at the core of any Aid-for-Trade project lay a genuine undertaking 
by the donor countries to grant both new and add itional funding, in a predictable, sustained and 
effective manner.  Ecuador commended the Director-Gen eral for his work in furthering this objective. 
108. The representative of Sri Lanka  said that the very inclusive manner in which the Task Force 
Chair had undertaken her responsibilities, and her ope n-door policy, had been particularly important 
for countries like Sri Lanka which had not been represented on the Task Force through a regional 
coordinator or regional group.  His delegation tha nked all of the members of the Task Force for 
completing their work on time and maintaining the dead line, particularly during the recent, very busy 
five-month period.  As his delegation had received th e report only late that morning, it did not have 
any comprehensive comments at the present stage, and looked fo rward to making comments at the 
next meeting.  Sri Lanka had always underlined th at the primary target group of Aid for Trade should 
go beyond LDCs, and had proposed that the IDA-onl y countries should be assisted through an IF-type 
arrangement.  His delegation noted that the reco mmendations on strengthening the demand side and 
the bridge between demand and response reflected so me of its concerns in this regard.  However, 
Sri Lanka hoped that these recommendations would be implemented in a meaningful manner that 
would cover the concerns of the IDA-only countries.  In this regard, it also particularly welcomed and 
shared the statement by Bangladesh for the LDCs that  additional, predictable and sustainable funding 
should be available to LDCs and IDA-only countries in grant form. 
109. The representative of Argentina  said that much of what had been said reflected his 
delegation's views.  Argentina wished to thank th e Latin American members of the Task Force, who 
had kept it informed and had acted as spokesper sons and who had transm itted many contributions 
from the Latin American region, including from Argentin a.  The timely and proper conclusion of the 
work Ministers had mandated in Hong Kong was again proof of the fact that the WTO was alive and 
in good health, and that in no way would work on th ese issues be halted.  His delegation had only just 
received the document and thus could not make detailed comments on it at the present time.  
However, he wished to highlight in particular th e Director-General's report on his efforts and how he 
intended to continue these efforts in order to be  able to crystallize the promises made in 2005 and 
2006 and to operationalize the concept of Aid for Trad e, which was key to ensuring that the Aid-for-
Trade mechanism was of some value.  Otherwise, this mechanism would merely express Members' 
wishes.  He wished to stress, like others, that Ai d for Trade was only a complement to the Round, and 
that the real aid was to be found in the negotiations and in market opening by all Members. 
110. The representative of Thailand  said her delegation believed that with conviction, effective Aid 
for Trade could significantly enhance economic growth prospects, reduce poverty and inequality, as 
well as raise overall standards of living in devel oping and least-developed countries.  Aid for Trade 
could achieve all these global benefits while also  strengthening the multilateral trading system.   WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 37 
 
 
Thailand therefore welcomed the recommendations, which formed a very good basis for further 
deliberations in the General Council, particularly in  the light of the current gloomy prospects for the 
DDA negotiations.  A positive outcome on Aid for Trade could serve as a much-needed ray of light, providing reassurance to Members.  Thailand was ready to work with the Chairman and the 
membership towards operationalizing Aid for Trade. 
111. The General Council took note
 of the statements and of the report by the Chairperson of the 
Task Force on Aid for Trade, and agreed  to revert to the report and its recommendations at its next 
meeting. 
7. Committee on Agriculture - Implementation-r elated issues - Report to the General 
Council (G/AG/16/Add.1) 
112. The Chairman  recalled that in paragraph 2 of the Doha Ministerial Decision on 
Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns (WT/MIN(01)/17), Ministers had approved a 
recommendation that the Committee on Agriculture, fo llowing its regular meeting in September 2002, 
should report to the General Council on:  (i) its examination of possible means to improve the 
effectiveness of the implementation of the Marra kesh Ministerial Decision regarding the least-
developed and net food-impor ting developing countries;  and (ii)  the implementation of Article 10.2 
of the Agriculture Agreement.  Ministers had also  endorsed a decision by the Agriculture Committee 
to keep under review the submission – by Members administering tariff quotas – of addenda to their 
notifications to the Committee in accordance with the decision of the General Council regarding the 
administration of tariff rate quota regimes in a tran sparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner.  
The Agriculture Committee had last reported to th e General Council on these matters in July 2003, 
and had submitted a further follow-up report in doc ument G/AG/16/Add.1, following the meeting of 
the Committee on 12 May.   
113. Mr Haeberli (Switzerland), Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture , said that the report in 
G/AG/16/Add.1 was intended to provide a factual u pdate of the follow-up by the Committee on the 
three issues referred to in the Doha Minister ial Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and 
Concerns, namely, export credits (Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture), food aid and 
administration of tariff quotas.   Briefly, concerning the first i ssue, the report highlighted that 
Members had thus far prioritized the discussion of ex port credits in the agriculture negotiations rather 
than in the regular Committee on Agriculture.  The report pointed out, however, that should the negotiations fail to find an acceptable solution, discussi ons might need to be pursued again within the 
regular Committee.  With regard to food aid, th e Committee's report:  (i) took stock of the DDA 
negotiations in the area of export competition afte r renegotiation of the 1999 Food Aid Convention;  
(ii)  recalled that food aid levels in recipient c ountries were regularly subject to review within the 
framework of the Committee's annua l monitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision;  and (iii) reviewed 
the Committee's consideration of a Category II S& D proposal, which would be the subject of his 
intervention under Item 9(b) of the present meeting's ag enda.  With regard to the third issue, i.e. the 
submission of Addenda to Table MA:1 notifications concerning tariff quota régimes as a matter of 
special interest to developing-count ry exporters, the report noted that:  (i)  Members were already able 
to raise any matters relating to the administra tion of specific tariff quotas in the course of the 
Committee's regular review process and under well-estab lished notification procedures;  and (ii) since 
July 2003 no Table MA:1 Addenda had been submitted.
  The report concluded that, in view of 
Members' preferences and pending further deve lopments in the negotiations, the Committee on 
Agriculture would keep these issues as standing items on its agenda.  Members would thus be free to 
revert to any of these items if and when new elements or proposals came forward. 
114. The representative of Cuba  thanked the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture for his 
report.  Regarding the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Impor ting Developing Countries, it was Cuba's 
understanding that work would continue on a double track, i.e. in the regular session of the Committee WT/GC/M/103 
Page 38  
 
on Agriculture, while at the same time there would be  a verification of the way these issues were dealt 
with in the negotiations.  In view of the suspen sion of the negotiations, in particular those in 
agriculture, Cuba would be grateful if this issue continued to remain on th e agenda of the Committee 
on Agriculture in its regular session. 
115. The General Council took note
 of the statements and of the report of the Committee on 
Agriculture in G/AG/16/Add.1. 
8. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
116. The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting in Febr uary and March 2002, the General Council 
had taken note of a framework and procedures fo r the conduct of the Work Programme on Small 
Economies, under which this Work Programme sh all be a standing item on the General Council's 
agenda.  The framework and procedures also pr ovided that the Committee on Trade and Development 
shall report regularly to the General Council on the pr ogress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on this 
subject.   
117. Mr Ismail (South Africa), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development , said that at a formal meeting of the Dedicated Session on 20 July, he had informed 
Members about the favourable reports he had r eceived from the Chairpersons of the SPS and TBT 
Committees and the TRIPS Council regarding thei r respective consultations on allowing small 
economies to use regional bodies to assist them wi th the implementation of their obligations under 
those Agreements, as proposed in documents  WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.1, W/16/Rev.1 and 
W/18/Rev.1.  The three Chairpersons had reporte d that some Members had raised concerns on 
particular aspects of the proposals.  The propone nts had addressed these concerns and had revised 
their proposals in the second revision of the docum ents he had referred to.  These revised proposals 
had been discussed in the Dedicated Session the prev ious week.  At that meeting, Members had been 
in agreement on the revised proposals and he had in formed them that he would report this progress to 
the General Council at the present meeting.  It w as his intention to present the General Council with a 
report from the Dedicated Session concerning these thr ee proposals at its next meeting.  Members had 
also discussed at the 20 July meeting a new paper by the proponents concerning the monitoring of 
issues which had been raised thus far by sma ll economies in the negotiations and in other WTO 
bodies.  The paper was an update of an earlier compilation and had been circulated in document 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1. 
118. The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the small-economy countries , thanked the Chair 
of the Dedicated Session of the CTD for his report a nd for his continued leadership in this process.  
Although the negotiations were in a state of inst ability, there were some positive achievements which 
should be recognized.  As Members would have not ed, the small, vulnerable economies (SVEs) had 
worked purposefully and assiduously the past few months and had tabled proposals in a number of negotiating fora on NAMA, agriculture, fisheries, trade facilitation, services and subsidies issues.  
These proposals were at varying stages of discussi on and engagement, and th e SVEs looked forward 
to enhanced interaction when the negotiations r ecommenced.  As the report by the Chair of the 
Dedicated Session of the CTD indicated, that body c ontinued to work towards realizing its mandate 
through the examination of broad and specific concer ns of the SVEs, as well as the monitoring of 
progress of proposals submitted by the SVEs in the ne gotiating and other bodies.  In particular, some 
SVEs had held extensive consultations on thre e administrative proposals relating to regional 
approaches under the TBT, SPS and TRIPS Agreemen ts.  These discussions had taken place in the 
Dedicated Session as well as in the respective Committees and had been both constructive and 
exhaustive.  The small-economy countries looked fo rward to positive consideration and adoption of 
the recommendations to be presented to the next mee ting of the General Council.  Despite the current 
impasse, the SVEs remained co mmitted to the multilateral process a nd ready to contribute to the 
discussions and negotiations on all issues of concer n to Members.  For the SVEs, the DDA was an  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 39 
 
 
opportunity to increase their level of integration into the global economy and to realize their development objectives.  This was an opportunity that should not be lost. 
119. The representatives of Guatemala
, Honduras , Bolivia  and the Dominican Republic  supported 
the statement by Barbados for the small-economy countries and thanked the Chair of the Dedicated 
Session of the CTD for his report and fo r his work on this Work Programme. 
120. The representative of Guatemala  said that his delegation attached the utmost importance not 
only to the work carried out within the Work Pr ogramme on Small Economies,  but to the Committee's 
monitoring function as established in paragraph 41  of the Hong Kong Declaration.  The small 
economies had been working on a document which listed,  in a factual manner, the relevant sections of 
the proposals they had formulated in various ne gotiating and other WTO bodies.  They had submitted 
this document to the Dedicated Session of the CTD for examination, discussion and monitoring 
purposes.  Guatemala had worked constructively to ta ble its negotiating and work proposals within the 
various WTO bodies.  In its opinion, these proposal s facilitated compliance with paragraph 41 of the 
Hong Kong Declaration.  His delegation would rema in attentive to the work carried out in the 
Committee and stood ready to work constructively w ith its Chair and Members to provide responses 
to the small economies' trade needs and difficulties. 
121. The representative of Honduras  said his delegation attached great importance to this Work 
Programme.  The flexibilities sought in the different areas of negotiation were intended to address the 
special development needs and problems of various  Members.  The small economies would continue 
working to fulfil the mandate from Ministers, whic h was to find appropriate responses to their trade-
related issues.  As Barbados had said, the sma ll economies remained comm itted to the multilateral 
process and hoped to achieve concrete results.  Me mbers should not forget that the small economies' 
participation in world trade was minimal and that th eir ultimate objective was to become integrated 
into the multilateral trading system. 
122. The representative of Bolivia  stressed the importance of the role played by the Dedicated 
Session in monitoring proposals submitted by SVEs such as Bolivia in each of the negotiating groups 
and other bodies, which was absolutely essentia l to ensure the follow-up to these proposals. 
123. The representative of Dominican Republic  said her delegation wished to highlight the work 
carried out both in the Dedicated Session of th e CTD and in the negotiating groups and other WTO 
bodies, in particular in the areas of agricultu re, non-agricultural products, and subsidies.  The 
Dominican Republic continued to be ready to work in these different bodies with the objective of ensuring the greater integration of SVEs into the multilateral trading system. 
124. The General Council took note
 of the report by the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
CTD and of the statements. 
9. Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment 
(a) Report by the Chairman of the Special Sessi on of the Committee on Trade and Development 
(b) Reports by chairpersons of other WTO bodies to whom Special and Differential treatment 
proposals have been referred 
125. The Chairman  recalled that Ministers at Hong Kong had instructed the Committee on Trade 
and Development in Special Sess ion to expeditiously complete the review of all outstanding 
Agreement-specific proposals and to report to the General Council – with clear recommendations for 
a decision – by December 2006.  Regarding the Cate gory II proposals that had been referred to other 
WTO bodies and negotiating groups, Ministers in Hong Kong had instructed that these bodies also 
expeditiously complete the consideration of th ese proposals and report periodically to the General WT/GC/M/103 
Page 40  
 
Council, with the objective of ensuring that clear recommendations for a decision were made no later 
than December 2006.  Ministers had further instruct ed the Special Session to continue to coordinate 
its efforts with these bodies, so as to  ensure that this work was comp leted on time.  Finally, Ministers 
had also instructed the Special S ession, within the parameters of the Doha mandate, to resume work 
on all other outstanding issues – including on the cro ss-cutting issues, the monitoring mechanism, and 
the incorporation of S&D treatment into the archit ecture of WTO rules – and to report on a regular 
basis to the General Council.  He recalled that at the General Council meeting on 15 May, the 
Chairpersons of the CTD Special Session and of the other WTO bodies had updated the General Council on their work in this area.  He proposed firs t to invite the Chairman of the Special Session of 
the CTD to make his report, followed by the Chai rs of the negotiating groups and other WTO bodies 
to whom such proposals had been referred. 
126. Mr Gafoor (Singapore), Chairman of the Co mmittee on Trade and Development in Special 
Session , said that he had submitted two reports on the wo rk of the Special Session – one to the TNC 
(TN/CTD/17) and the other to the General Council (T N/CTD/18) – and wished simply to highlight a 
few points.  First, he wished to underline that the Special Session had made some progress since Hong 
Kong.  For example, on the Agreement-specific prop osals, Members had been able to make progress 
on six out of the 16 remaining proposals.  On th e outstanding issues, Members had agreed to focus 
work on the Monitoring Mechanism.  While th ere had been some progress, there remained 
fundamental differences on many issues, and the work was therefore far from complete.  
Nevertheless, he had been encouraged by the fact that Members had been working in an atmosphere 
of constructive engagement in the Special Session.   With regard to the category II proposals, the 
Special Session had been coordinating its efforts wi th the Chairpersons of the bodies to whom these 
proposals had been referred, and he would leave it to the Chairs concerned to update the General 
Council.  Second, he wished to inform Members th at the LDCs had tabled two submissions in the 
Special Session on the duty-free quota-free market acces s issue.  One submission related to rules of 
origin and the other to market access.  In the pr eliminary discussion that had taken place at the most 
recent meeting of the Special Session on 7 Ju ly, Members had reiterated their commitment to 
implementing the DFQF decision.  Some had sought ce rtain clarifications on the two papers tabled by 
the LDCs.  He had urged Members, particularly th e key stakeholders, to continue their bilateral 
consultations with each other, as this was crucial in bridging the differences in views and expectations 
on this particular issue.  Like all the ot her bodies under the TNC, the Special Session would 
undoubtedly be affected by the suspension of negotia tions across the board.  However, he hoped that 
Members could preserve whatever progress they had made thus far in the Special Session, so that 
when the negotiations resumed, they would be able to build on the progress made and bring closure to 
this very long-standing issue. 
127. The Chairman  said that before inviting the Chairs  of the other WTO bodies to speak, he 
wished to recall the statement by the TRIPS Council Chairman at the May 2006 meeting of the 
General Council in which the latter had indicated th at the TRIPS Council had authorized him to report 
(i) that the situation in regard to the Categor y II proposals referred to that Council remained as 
reported in July 2005 in document IP/C/36;  ( ii) that the TRIPS Council reiterated its earlier 
recommendation as reproduced in that document;  a nd (iii) that no further action was otherwise 
needed on the proposals referred to that Council.  In the light of this report to the May Council 
meeting, he would not be inviting the TRIPS Council Chair to report further at the present meeting.  
He also noted that in the absence of the Chair of  the Special Session of th e Committee on Agriculture, 
the latter's report had been circulated as document TN/AG/22.  
128. Mr Haeberli (Switzerland), Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture , said that his progress 
report related to consideration of a proposal by the African Group as part of the Committee's follow-
up to the NFIDC Decision, as well as in the context of the Doha Decision on Implementation-Related 
Issues and Concerns.   The African Group had called for deve loped-country Members to embody in 
their schedules of commitments undertakings on, and contributions to, a revolving fund for normal 
levels of food imports, providing food aid in fu lly grant form, and maintaining food aid levels  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 41 
 
 
consistently with recommendations and rules under the Food Aid Convention.  The situation remained 
unchanged since he had last reporte d on this matter to the May General Council, and as reflected in 
document G/AG/22.  The Committee on Agriculture w ould meet again in September and stood ready 
to consider any proposal that might be presented to it. 
129. Mr Valles Galmés (Uruguay), Chairman  of the Negotiating Group on Rules , said that the 
situation with respect to the proposals referred to the Group remained unchanged from his last report.  
As he had reported then, while these proposals had b een on the agenda at a number of meetings, there 
had been little discussion on them.  Recognizing the resource constraints of small delegations, he 
would place any of these proposals on the agenda of  a future meeting of the Group upon receiving 
affirmative confirmation from any of the proponent s indicating their wish to further discuss them.  
While these specific proposals had not been the subj ect of significant discussion, this did not mean 
that the interests of developing-country Member s had not been receiving attention.  The latter 
Members were very active in the Group and had spon sored numerous proposals, including, in the past 
few months, S&D proposals from Kenya and India. 
130. Mr Kim (Korea), Chairman of the Committee on Safeguards , recalled that his predecessors as 
Chairs of the Safeguard Comm ittee had reported to the Genera l Council on many occasions on the 
S&D proposal referred to the Safeguards Committee.  As the incoming Chair, he himself had reported 
to the May Council.  Notwithstanding numerous effort s, the situation had not developed at all since 
the Safeguards Committee had reported in detail to th e General Council in July 2003.  In order to 
contribute to the process as the new Chair, following his report to the Council in May, he had tried to 
contact the proponents over the past months, inform ing them that the S&D proposal would continue 
to be dormant unless the proponents raised it again with  a certain level of support of other Members.  
However, thus far he had not heard anything, eith er from the proponents or from any other Member.  
That being said, he fully recognized the resource  constraints of small de legations.  Under these 
circumstances, he had to say that the proposal s referred to the Safeguards Committee had been 
effectively set aside and would continue to be so until the proponents decided to revive this matter. 
131. Mr Massot (France), Chairman of the Comm ittee on Trade-Related Investment Measures , 
said that the Committee had considered two S&D proposals submitted by the African Group relating 
to Articles 4 and 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement.  Si nce his last report to the General Council, the 
TRIMs Committee had held a formal meeting on 9 J une to further discuss a revised text of the 
proposals submitted by Kenya on behalf of the Africa n Group.  In addition, he had pursued a number 
of informal contacts with interested delegations in order to explore possible ways to move further on 
this issue.  The formal Committee meeting had provided for a substantive discussion and a very 
constructive exchange of views.  Some interes ting ideas had emerged that could be explored and 
could perhaps help Members find an acceptable soluti on.  For example, it had been suggested  that 
Members consider the proposals not as a single block, but in different parts, so as to allow Members 
to address first those areas where reaching an ag reement seemed more likely.  This had been 
supported by the proponents.  Another idea that ha d emerged was to work mo re specifically on the 
country coverage of the proposals.  In this r espect, the proponents had shown their readiness to 
consider alternative language formul ations.  He believed this was an important step forward.  In 
general, his feeling was that proponents and othe r delegations were willing to look together for 
solutions.  Bearing in mind these positive developments and with a view to future work in the group, 
he fully supported what the Chair of the Special Se ssion of the CTD had said, and would therefore ask 
Members to decide in what way future work on this subject should be organized. 
132. Mr Dorantes (Mexico), Chairman of the Committee on SPS Measures , said that in order to 
ensure the greatest transparency on this important matter, he had on his own responsibility circulated 
a written report on 13 July (G/SPS/41), and wished to dr aw attention to some of the main points.  The 
Committee had considered the issue of S&D treatm ent at every available opportunity, and had kept 
this as a standing item on its agenda.  When it had b een required to shorten the time allotted for its 
regular meeting in October 2005 due to prepara tions for the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, WT/GC/M/103 
Page 42  
 
S&D treatment had been one of the few issues that ha d been kept on the agenda.  It had been included 
yet again when the regular meeting had resumed at the beginning of February 2006.  Informal 
meetings on this issue had also been held in Ja nuary, March and May 2006, but an informal meeting 
scheduled for 26 June had had to be cancelled because of the impossibility of holding meetings at the 
WTO that week.  Nonetheless, the Secretariat had been  able to arrange for the regular meeting of the 
SPS Committee to proceed, and S&D treatment had been discussed on that occasion as well.  With 
regard to the five specific proposals referred to the Committee, substantive progress had been possible 
only when revisions to the proposals had been tabled.  The revised African Group proposal on Article 9.2 of the SPS Agreement – first tabled info rmally on 28 March, with a second revision tabled 
on 24 May, had stimulated positive and constructive discussion.  However, the revised proposals had 
been presented at informal meetings on an informal basis, and hence had not been translated, and this 
had worked to the disadvantage of many developing- country Members.  There were many similarities 
between the revised proposal by the African Gr oup and the procedure formally adopted by the 
SPS Committee in October 2004 (G/SPS/33) for re questing S&D treatment whenever a new 
SPS measure was introduced.  Discuss ions had therefore focused on what additional elements had 
been proposed by the African Group, the extent to  which these might be acceptable and how best they 
could be addressed.  There had also been some discussion as to why no Member had yet used the 
existing procedure to request S&D treatment in response to new SPS measures.  Other discussions 
within the Committee relating to Category II S&D pr oposals, and to documents submitted by other 
Members, had focused on improving technical assi stance to ensure that it addressed, in the most 
effective way possible, the needs identified by de veloping-country Members.  This was an area in 
which the Committee had agreed to continue furthe r practical work.  The African Group had signalled 
its intention to table a revised proposal in this  regard, which would be a valuable input for the 
Committee's deliberations.  He also wished to note that a special workshop on the problems faced by 
developing-country Members in implementing th e SPS Agreement had been held on 31 March, 
parallel to the formal meeting of the Committee.  The Global Trust Fund had sponsored the 
participation of 40 officials, most of whom were from LDCs.  Many of these officials had submitted 
documents describing their experience and proble ms with implementation of the SPS Agreement.  
The workshop had focused on identifying the most conc rete and practical ways  for Members to make 
better use of the SPS Agreement a nd thus improve market access for their products.  The Committee 
would continue to consider the S&D proposals and would seek to address the problems faced by 
developing-country Members in a practical manner, with the objective of finding the most precise, 
effective and operational solutions.  An informal me eting on S&D had been scheduled for 9 October, 
and the issue would once again be on the agenda of the formal Committee meeting later that week. 
133. The Chairman
 said that in the absence of  the Chairs of the Special Sessions of the Council for 
Trade in Services and of the DSB, their reports would be circulated shortly. On that basis, he wished 
to thank all the Chairs for their reports. 9 
134. All representatives who spoke thanked th e various Chairs for their reports. 
135. The representative of Bangladesh , on behalf of the LDCs , said that as the Chair of the CTD in 
Special Session had recalled, Ministers at Hong Kong had reaffirmed that the provisions on S&D 
treatment were integral parts of WTO agreements  and had renewed their commitment to fulfil the 
mandate contained in paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration a nd the General Council Decision of 
August 2004.  Ministers had specifically instructed the CTD in Special Session to expeditiously 
complete the review of all the outstanding agre ement-specific proposals and report to the General 
Council with clear recommendations by December 2006.  The LDCs extended their wholehearted 
support to the CTD Special Session Chair in this  process.  For the LDCs, duty-free and quota-free 
market access was of vital importance to help th em integrate into the multilateral trading system.  
Time and again, the LDCs had indicated that  duty-free and quota-free treatment was also a 
                                                      
9 The reports by all the Chairpersons under this Agenda item were subsequently circulated in document 
WT/GC/108.   WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 43 
 
 
negotiating issue and hence should be dealt with in the negotiating bodies as well.  The regular CTD 
could monitor progress as per the mandate given it.  With this approach in mind, the LDCs had 
submitted modalities on duty-free and quota-free mark et access in the CTD Sp ecial Session, as well 
as in the agriculture and NAMA negotiating groups.  They urged developed-  and developing-country 
Members declaring themselves in  a position to do so to operationalize the duty-free, quota-free 
provision of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration,  i.e. the totality of proposal number 36 in 
Annex F of the Hong Kong Declaration, in a way that truly met the demands of the LDCs. 
136. The representative of Kenya  said that the report by the Chai r of the CTD in Special Session 
had taken a positive approach, a nd his delegation noted that some  progress had been made, although 
not enough to take a decision on these issues.  Howe ver, Kenya continued to have a problem because, 
as noted in paragraph 5 of the Special Session's report to the General Council, there did not seem to be 
a common understanding of what predictability of out come and automaticity meant in the granting of 
flexibility.  Members should perhaps also reflect on th is as part of their wider reflection, so that when 
negotiations resumed there was a common understa nding and all could move forward.  Members 
should also remind themselves of what Ministers wanted them to do.  They did not want them to 
review the utilization of S&D treatment provisions .  A problem had already been identified, and 
Ministers wanted that problem to be resolved without  delay.  As regards the reports from the Chairs of 
the bodies considering Category II proposals, since 2003 when the S&D proposals had been categorized and some sent to other WTO bodies, there had been a problem of follow-up, and this was why the reports on these issues continued to indicate th at the situation remained the same.  There had 
been very little progress.  Fortunately, the most recent reports did not indicate there had been no 
consensus, so there was some hope of making progr ess in future.  However, the African Group needed 
to rethink this matter, so that these issues could be resolved, and so that it could participate rather than 
receiving reports that Chairs were still waiting for th e proponents to argue thei r case.  One needed to 
pause and reflect on other ways to approach these issues in future discussions – i.e. whether to 
continue to examine these proposals in the releva nt WTO bodies, or perhaps to reduce the number of 
meetings, as it had become almost impossible for sma ll delegations like Kenya to follow some of the 
discussions.  He also wished to remind Members that the mandate in this area was very clear.  Perhaps 
even in the absence of the proponents Members should try to strengthen S&D provisions and make them more precise, effective and operational.  His delegation appealed to Members to consider how 
they could approach these issues so that by Decemb er 2006 they would have results that all could be 
proud of. 
137. The representative of Cuba
 said that his delegation's statement under Agenda Item 1 had 
already referred in a way to the status of work unde r the present agenda item, in particular regarding 
the situation and the prospects for these issues de scribed by the Chairman of the CTD in Special 
Session.  The latter had said that of the proposals ma de, there was only some type of prospect for six 
of them, which would clearly indicate that – all th e other reports taken toge ther – this was an area 
where, while it was of particular interest to many  developing countries, as had been stated by Kenya, 
unfortunately there had been very little progress.  Over and over in the Ge neral Council delegations 
had heard the Committee Chairs report that the ball was essentially in the court of the proponents.  
While these countries had not been able to par ticipate in certain discussions because of the 
overlapping and large numbers of WTO meetings, Cuba had tried to participate in all such 
discussions.  However, it had not seen any sign of willingness on the part of its developed-country 
partners to move forward and to reach a solution.   Thus, through the Gene ral Council Chair, Cuba 
wished to echo Kenya's appeal urging Members to  participate more actively in finding solutions as 
soon as possible, so that Members would finally be able to see a glimmer of optimism in this area. 
138. The representative of Zambia  said his delegation endorsed the statement by Bangladesh for 
the LDCs and wished to thank the Chair of CTD in Special Session for the wonderful work he had 
done.  He also wished to thank the Members who had participated in the proceedings of the CTD 
Special Session. WT/GC/M/103 
Page 44  
 
139. The General Council took note
 of the reports by the Chairpersons and of the statements. 
10. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 – 
Communications from Honduras and Guatem ala (WT/GC/85, WT/GC/90 and Corr.1, 
WT/GC/100, WT/MIN(05)/9) – Statement by the Chairman 
140. The Chairman  recalled that this matter had first been  raised by the delegations of Honduras 
and Guatemala at the General Council meeting in December 2004.  It had subsequently been 
considered by the General Council at each of its re gular meetings since then, without resolution.  In 
the light of the views expressed at these meetings, and the requests for consultations made by Honduras and Guatemala, both his predecessors and he  had been holding consu ltations in order to 
assist in finding a way forward.  At the May Ge neral Council, he had reported on his most recent 
consultations.  In view of the statements at that  meeting, he had proposed that the General Council 
revert to this matter at its next meeting, and that  he hold further consultations in the meantime with 
the aim of moving this matter forward.  On 21 July , he had held further c onsultations to provide 
another opportunity for the Members concerned to seek  clarifications or make suggestions for ways 
forward, and to see if he, as Chair, could facilitate  a satisfactory resolution to the concerns expressed 
regarding this matter.  He had invited to those consultations all the dele gations who had spoken on 
this issue at previous meetings of the Council, and had made clear that the consultations were without 
prejudice to any Member's rights under the WTO. 
141. At the consultations, Honduras and Guatemala had both reiterated their concern that no 
solution had so far been found with regard to  their claims of supplying interest under the 
Articles XXIV and XXVIII negotiations in connection with the EC's enlargement and its modification 
of its Schedule as regards bananas.  Guatemala had underlined its position that this matter related not 
only to bananas but to the broader question of ri ghts under these provisions, and particularly rights of 
small suppliers, and Honduras had re iterated that, in its view, failure to find a solution would render 
the 1980 Procedures for negotiations under Artic le XXVIII – under which this matter had been 
referred to the General Council – null and void.  The EC, for its part, had reiterated that it took very 
seriously the concerns that had been expressed, and that it remained ready to continue the process of 
consultations to find a solution.  On the question of  the treatment of small suppliers, the EC had also 
reiterated that it could not unilatera lly change or add to multilateral ru les and practices that had been 
agreed in the GATT and WTO for establishing and ac cording supplier rights, and that if a rule was 
going to be changed, it should be change d for all parties in a similar situation. 
142. In conclusion, he had to report that the consulta tions had not resulted in any meeting of minds 
as yet on the claims of substantial interest subm itted by Honduras and Guatemala in connection with 
the EC's enlargement negotiations as well as the modi fication of its Schedule under Article XXVIII as 
regards bananas.  He had been encouraged nevert heless by a willingness on all sides to continue the 
dialogue, and was counting on the good will of all Members to help reso lve this matter satisfactorily as 
early as possible, in keeping with the collective responsibility under the 1980 Procedures under which 
this matter had been referred to the Council.  As he had said to delegations at the consultations, he 
continued to remain available and open to s uggestions aimed at facilitating a resolution. 
143. The representative of Guatemala
 thanked the Chairman for his report and for conducting 
informal consultations on this matter.  Regarding the banana issue, her de legation had recently had 
constructive talks with the EC, and hoped that in due  course such meetings would lead to a concrete 
and beneficial outcome.  Much of this would de pend on the good faith and political will of the EC.  
As all knew, this topic had been on the Council's agenda since December 2004.  Her delegation had 
regularly made clear that Guatemala's concern rega rding this matter was not only a trade-related one 
in connection with bananas, but was much deeper, in that it was a systemic and global concern.  
Despite several attempts to focus the discussion on th is topic, Members inexplicably always ended up 
discussing concrete aspects of the banana issue.   In so doing, they downplayed the underlying 
importance of this agenda item.  Thus, the discu ssions had left aside a key concern which, as her  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 45 
 
 
delegation had gathered from discussions in the Counc il – was shared by a large number of Members.  
This concern was the EC enlargement process and the impact it had had on the organization.  The 
enlargement question was being discussed in vari ous WTO bodies, and she would go as far as to say 
that in most of these, and for different reasons, several Members had highlighted anomalies and irregularities.  The common denominator of all the se anomalies appeared to be the unilateral criteria 
adopted by the EC and the lack of clarity in the EC's commitments. 
144. Her delegation was aware that this was neither the time nor the place to address all of these 
concerns and that there was a competent forum to  deal with each of them.  Unfortunately, in 
Guatemala's case in particular, there was no competen t forum to effectively resolve any disagreement 
that might arise in the context of a tariff renegotia tion.  As her delegation had repeatedly said, the EC 
had failed to recognize Guatemala's negotiating rights , and hence the latter had had no opportunity to 
participate in the negotiations, let al one receive compensation in respect of several products of interest 
to it.  This was partly because Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of GATT made no appropriate or realistic 
provision for the defence of small and medium-siz ed exporting Members.  The membership should 
seriously tackle these issues.  The current state of affairs had to be remedied in order to address the 
needs and interests of small and medium-sized expor ting Members.  There needed to be a fair and 
genuine distribution of negotiating rights in th e organization and an effective procedure for 
compensation in the case of tariff renegotiations.  Her delegation had been most interested to hear the 
positive suggestions and c ontributions made by the Philippines on this subject, and saw these as 
interesting ideas on which one could build in order to reach a solution to this systemic issue.  
Guatemala was confident that the Chairman would lead Members forward on that path. 
145. The representative of Honduras
 said his delegation deplored the fact that the EC persisted in 
denying recognition of the legitimate interests of Honduras as a substantial supplier in the withdrawal 
of its concessions regarding bananas.  As a sma ll developing country with a per capita income of 
US$704, Honduras failed to understand why the EC was be ing so inflexible in this case.  The grounds 
for this position put forward by the EC could be summarized as follows:  Article XXVIII allowed 
Honduras's market share to be calculated on the basi s of years during which it had been subject to 
discriminatory restrictions, and any percentage of market share that was slightly below 10 per cent 
could be totally disregarded, in spite of the f act that the supplier might be a small developing 
economy which depended largely on the sales in question as a source of export earnings.  The WTO 
rules did not permit such an approach.  On the cont rary, the EC was not authorized to carry out the 
market share analysis on the basis of a time-period in  which there had been discr imination, or to apply 
the 10 per cent rule in an inflexible manner, esp ecially when two Panels had found that during the 
correct reference period, Honduras had been one of the major banana suppliers.  It would 
unquestionably prove harmful to the system if the EC's  flawed approach were to prevail.  Indeed, the 
Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII,  as interpreted by various panels, was mainly 
intended to ensure that rights deriving from market share were determined in a flexible manner in the 
case of small and medium-size developing countries that had been affected by the withdrawal of a 
tariff concession.  If the EC was allowed to impose unfair barriers and fail to demonstrate the 
appropriate flexibility, compensation would always be  in favour of developed- country Members to the 
detriment of developing-country Members.  Moreover,  if the organization failed to settle a developing 
country's claims which, while legitimately put forward, had been improperly ignored, developing-
country Members would have no say when their righ ts to compensation were disregarded.  The WTO 
was facing difficult times – and the EC had openly expressed willingness to contribute to the task of 
adjusting the WTO rules to the needs of the devel oping countries – so this was a good time for the EC 
to address his Government's request for recognition of Honduras' rights as a substantial supplier.   
146. The representative of Costa Rica  said that his delegation supported the statements by 
Guatemala and Honduras. 
147. The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation also supported the statements by 
Honduras and Guatemala on this matter, as it had done since 2004.  Brazil was happy to note from the WT/GC/M/103 
Page 46  
 
Chairman's report that there was goodwill on all si des, which was very positive because the idea was 
to try to seek alternatives that would facilitate a so lution to the broader ques tion of bananas.  Brazil 
was also very happy to hear Guatemala's referen ce to its constructive contacts with the European 
Communities, and hoped that a solution to th is matter would be found as soon as possible. 
 
148. The representative of Ecuador
 said that his delegation had always supported the requests 
made by Guatemala and Honduras, and called on the European Communities to resolve this matter in 
the fairest manner for the parties concerned.  Hi s delegation also thanked the Chairman for his 
consultations to try to find a solution.  This issu e was a systemic one that was linked to compensation 
the European Communities had to grant in its enla rgement procedure within the framework of GATT 
– negotiations in which Ecuador was continuing to participate. 
149. The representative of Mexico  thanked the Chairman for his report.  As it had stated on 
previous occasions, Mexico considered that Guat emala's and Honduras's claims were justified, and 
hoped that a solution would be found rapi dly that favoured both these countries. 
150. The representative of the Philippines  said that the Chairman's report at least provided hope 
that a good solution would be found to this matter .  His delegation also wished to thank Guatemala 
and Honduras for keeping this issue alive in the Ge neral Council.  As stated on previous occasions, 
the Philippines' interest in this particular matter was not focussed just on bananas, but was more of a 
systemic concern that the legitimate interests of small suppliers seemed to have been ignored.  It 
hoped the EC and the parties involved would continue their constructive engagement. 
151. The representative of Nicaragua  said her delegation joined in what had been said by 
Guatemala and Honduras urging the European Communities to respect the provisions of 
Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of GATT 1994, through the acknowledgement of the rights which had 
been recognized by the WTO.  This was a long ongoing case and affected the credibility of the 
multilateral trading system.  Thus, a solution should be found rapidly in a mutually satisfactory way. 
152. The representative of Colombia  reiterated that her country had a great interest in the 
negotiations that were going on w ith the European Communities.  Her delegation had stated this in the 
past and had been participating in the negotiations.  It merely wished at present to inform the Council 
that, to date, no positive solution had been found.  Ho wever, Colombia had a lot of hope that through 
the ongoing negotiations and dialogue, an agreement would be reached that would be favourable to all 
countries involved in this matter. 
153. The representative of Panama  said that her delegation supported the requests by Guatemala 
and Honduras that they should be recognized as subs tantial suppliers with re gard to bananas on the 
basis of the arguments and the documentation that had been submitted. 
154. The representative of Paraguay  said his delegation wished to thank the Chairman for his 
consultations and efforts to find a solution to th is matter.  Paraguay also wished to express its 
satisfaction regarding the progress that had been made, as indicated by Guatemala and Honduras.  His 
delegation trusted that in the very near future, a proper solution would be found.  Paraguay also 
wished to emphasize the great importance of this is sue for small economies.  There were two issues 
that were of particular interest to these countries:  First, the importance of applying very broad criteria 
that were as flexible as possi ble when talking about the inter ests of small economies and small 
suppliers, who would find it very difficult to meet the relevant requirements if these criteria were 
applied too strictly.  It was importa nt to apply the criteria of equity and fairness.  Members should not 
claim precedence for economi es that were more diversified and had a greater export capacity.  This 
was why it was so important to find a solution to this problem from a systemic standpoint.  Also, it was very important to shed light on the mechanis m that had been establishe d to settle issues where 
small countries were all too often not able to deal  with the application of the dispute settlement 
mechanism.  It was important to understand the vari ous interests involved, and why the larger trading  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 47 
 
 
partners had to use this mechanism in a palliative way that would really serve the interests of the 
smaller countries who could not always defend themselves in these expensive and complicated 
proceedings.  Paraguay hoped that the European Communities, Honduras and Guatemala would continue working towards a so lution, because this would be beneficial for all Members. 
155. The representative of Indonesia
 said that although his country ha d no direct interest in this 
case it did have systemic concerns, in particular regarding the interpretation of the Understanding on 
the Interpretation of Article XXVIII.  Indonesia shared  the views of other Members on this matter, in 
particular those of Honduras as expressed in paragraph 4 of document WT/GC/90.  Indonesia 
supported the view that paragraph 1 of the Unde rstanding on the Interpre tation of Article XXVIII 
fully recognized that in determining what constitute d a substantial share, special consideration should 
be given to the needs of small developing count ries that were heavily dependent on exports of 
products subject to tariff increases.  The idea behi nd the interpretation of Article XXVIII during the 
Uruguay Round had been to help small countries fight for their interests even though they might not be major suppliers or major expor ters, but were heavily reliant on the export of those products in 
order to boost their economies.  His delegation wish ed to emphasize strongly that this was the basic 
idea behind the interpretation of this Article duri ng the Uruguay Round.  Therefore, it continued to 
believe, based on the above, that Guatemala and Honduras had the right to a substantial supplying 
interest, and therefore had the right to compensation.   
156. The representative of El Salvador
 supported the statements by Honduras and Guatemala, 
particularly for systemic reasons.  All were aw are of her delegation's concern over the lack of 
acknowledgement of rights under Articles XXIV an d XXVIII of GATT 1994.  This question was not 
new.  Guatemala and Honduras had submitted this request in December 2004.  Since then, the 
Chairman had been requested to hold consultations with delegations in orde r to find an appropriate 
solution to this matter.  However, to date no agreem ent between the parties as such had been reached.  
El Salvador supported the idea that consultations c ontinue in order to reach a satisfactory outcome, 
and reiterated its interest that an agreement be r eached respecting the rights of all parties in the 
context of the established provisions. 
157. The representative of th e European Communities  thanked the Chairman for having held the 
consultations on this matter and for his personal commitment to helping find a resolution to the 
banana issue more generally.  His delegation reali zed that if there had been any progress in substance 
on the rather long-standing question of non-recognition of  rights, it had at best been thin.  However, 
the Community stood ready to continue to work with  the Chairman on the process, and in this regard 
did see opportunities to explore more ideas.  On the broader Article XXVIII question – which one 
might call the "banana-only" question – as his de legation had stated previously, it would have 
preferred to have an agreement with all MFN supp liers on the level of the tariff, or to have had 
guidance from the arbitration process.  This had not  been the case.  Thus, in order to meet its 
obligations, the Community had moved ahead under its own responsibility and had fixed an applied 
tariff of €176 per tonne, and had then established a mechanism to try to monitor developments.  
Without prejudging the outcome of this monitoring,  and therefore without trying to draw definitive 
conclusions, the first five months of data had revealed EU imports  from, respectively, MFN and ACP 
suppliers, that were above the level over the same  period the previous year.  On the Article XXVIII 
point, his delegation had noted again what Honduras ha d said at this meeting regarding some statistics 
and additional arguments to sustai n its claim under paragraph 7 of Ad Article XXVIII:1 , that Honduras 
should be recognized as a substantial supplier on the b asis that it could reasonably be expected to have 
a significant share in the EC market  in the absence of discriminatory quantitative restrictions effecting 
its exports.  However, as the Community had said previously, it believed H onduras had failed in its 
claim to show that it would have had a significant share of the market, and therefore had not proved 
any link between its decreased share and the EC im port regime.  This was why the Community had 
continued to reject Honduras as a substantial supplier. WT/GC/M/103 
Page 48  
 
158. On the question of EU enlargement, the Ar ticle XXIV:6 issue, all would recognize the 
considerable experience the EU had gained in this area – first, in the enlargement from six to nine, 
then from nine to 12, then from 12 to 15, and now from 15 to 25.  The Community had engaged in more Article XXIV:6 negotiations than any Member.  His delegation had taken very careful note of 
what had been said by Guatemala at the present mee ting, but wished to reiterate, as it had on many 
occasions, that it had followed GATT/WTO law and well established practice, including when 
recognizing and rejecting claims, because any deviati on – such as an ad hoc move for one Member 
over another – would raise questions  of discrimination.  On the mo re general questi ons concerning 
Guatemala – questions broader than bananas – th e Community had given very clear explanations 
regarding the examination of Guatemala's claims  and had shared further detailed information 
bilaterally with Guatemala on the precise lines wher e Guatemala considered it had negotiating rights.  
His delegation was always ready to continue tho se discussions.  The Community had made the point 
at the May Council meeting, and had repeated it in the informal consultations, concerning its openness 
with respect to the so-called small suppliers.  He would therefore not repeat it.  However, he would 
add that to act in an ad hoc manner in one case,  and only one case, as some had urged and continued 
to urge, would constitute discrimin ation and would probably leave the EC in breach of WTO rules.  
As always, the Community remained ready to discu ss this issue further with Honduras and Guatemala 
and to examine any additional documentation these Me mbers might wish to present in support of their 
claims.  He had taken careful note of the point ra ised by Indonesia and would be happy to speak 
bilaterally with that delegation, so  that he could report back to his authorities and see if there were 
new arguments that the Community had not taken no te of earlier.  His delegation again thanked the 
Chairman for his assistance in trying to resolve this matter through informal consultations, and of 
course remained ready to participate in any such consultations the Chairman might hold. 
159. The representative of Honduras
 said his delegation had taken note of the statement by the 
European Communities and wished to react to a few points.  First, the EC had said that Honduras had 
not responded to the aspect of discriminatory qua ntitative restrictions.  However, as Honduras had 
noted in its communication in WT/GC/90, the EC ha d maintained discriminatory measures regarding 
bananas from Honduras already since 1993.  With regard to the EC claim that it wished to give special 
attention to small suppliers, Honduras wished to  note, as it had done in WT/GC/90, that under 
paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII, in determining what 
constituted a substantial share, spec ial consideration had to be given to the needs of small developing 
countries that were heavily reliant on exports of the product subject to the tariff increase.  This was 
clearly provided in the Understanding, and Honduras w as therefore not trying to rewrite the rules.  
The responses of Honduras had always been very clear.  It was obvious that the EC did not wish to observe the rules. 
160. The representative of Jamaica
 said that his delegation had noted carefully all the statements 
that had been made, and in particular the statement just made by the EC.  Specifically in relation to 
bananas, Jamaica reiterated the crucial importanc e of this industry to its economy and to the 
economies of many other countries in its region, bot h in terms of employment  and exports.  Jamaica 
supported continued constructive c onsultations, which it hoped would lead to a solution that took full 
account of the interests of all parties on this and re lated issues, and which fully  respected the interests 
of ACP countries and assisted the CARICOM countries. 
161. The representative of Guatemala  said her delegation wished to clarify that its major concern 
on this issue was a systemic one.  Therefore, the solution Guatemala was seeking on this issue was not 
an ad hoc one, nor one that would apply only to a specific case.  Rather, Guatemala was looking for 
was a global solution that would be beneficial to a ll small- and medium-sized exporters in the WTO. 
162. The General Council took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting and that the Chair would continue consulta tions in the meantime with the aim of moving this 
matter forward.  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 49 
 
 
11. Rules of Origin – Harmonization Work Programme – Statement by the Chairman 
163. The Chairman  recalled that the Harmonization Work Programme for non-preferential rules of 
origin had been launched in July 1995 in the Co mmittee on Rules of Origin, and that – due to the 
sheer number and complexity of the technical issues involved – Members had been unable to conclude this work even though the deadline for its completion had been extended several times.  
Since July 2002, when the Committee on Rules of Or igin had forwarded 94 core policy issues to the 
General Council for discussion and decision, this matter had been taken up at the General Council 
level.  The substantive work had, since then, been  pursued in informal consultations conducted by the 
Chair of the Committee on Rules of Origin, on the re quest and behalf of the Chair of the General 
Council.  In July 2005, the General Council ha d agreed that the deadline for completion of 
negotiations on the core policy issues be extended to July 2006, and also that, following resolution of 
these core policy issues, the Committee on Rules of  Origin would complete its remaining work 
concerning the overall architecture and technical issues by 31 December 2006.   
164. Ms Thorstensen (Brazil), Chairperson of the Committee on Rules of Origin
, recalled that 
since July 2002, when the Committee on Rules of Or igin had forwarded 94 core policy issues to the 
General Council for discussion and decision, this matter had been taken up at the General Council 
level.  Substantive work was being pursued in in formal consultations conducted by the Chair of the 
CRO, on the request and behalf of the Chair of the General Council.  She was pleased to report, on her 
own responsibility, on the progress in the consultati ons for the harmonization of rules of origin on 
94 core policy issues, which she had held with Memb ers since July 2005.  Following consultations in 
February 2006, in her capacity as the CRO Chair sh e had made the following suggestions for future 
work.  (i) recognizing that the implications issu e and horizontal issues on machinery, due to high 
sensitivity, needed more time and effort for d ecision, Members would first take up the product-
specific issues with a view to completing the work by May 2006;  (ii) the CRO Chair would circulate 
by early April 2006 the final package for 83 product- specific rules of origin concerning agricultural 
products, cement, chemicals, leat her, textiles, footwear, steel and watches, except those for 
machinery;  (iii) Members would discuss the proposed  final package at the open-ended consultations 
on 30 May 2006, with a view to endorsing, or not endorsing, the package as a whole. 
165. The final package had been circulated on 18 April 2006 and was contained in 
JOB(06)/86/Rev.2.  Strong support for the whole package had been expressed by most Members in 
the consultation on 30 May.  A number of Members had also emphasized that the final package was well-balanced and that any amendment to it would unra vel it.  They had also stated that this was the 
time for decision, not discussion.  However, some  Members had reserved their positions on a limited 
number of issues, as they needed more time to work  with their industries.  Other Members, however, 
due to concerns over particular issues, could not support the whole package.  The latter's concerns 
were related mainly to dairy prod ucts, sugar, wine and coffee issues.  They had also expressed their 
concern over the implications issue.  She was convi nced that their concerns could be addressed in 
light of discussion on the implications issue and th e general understanding of the role and use of non-
preferential rules of origin in the current trad e regime.  The summary of these statements was 
contained in JOB(06)/86/Rev.2/Add. 1.  In conclusion, she said that although important progress had 
clearly been made and the number of issues on which Members had no problems was around 20, it 
had not been possible to reach c onsensus on all 94 issues, which meant that unfortunately Members 
had missed the deadline again and for the eighth time.   She recalled what she had said at the General 
Council meetings in both July 2004 and July 2005, na mely that all were aware that they did not have 
boundless freedom to continue their work on this issue into the future.  Howeve r, she believed that the 
present year was different, in that this package appr oach had put the negotiators on the right track and 
that they were determined to bring this work to a close.  She asked that the General Council agree to 
continue its work until July 2007, taking up the following issues in sequence:  machinery, the 
implications issue with regard to anti-dumpi ng and countervailing duties, safeguard measures, 
labelling and marking, fish taken from the EEZ, a nd unresolved issues under the final package.  She 
also asked that the General Council mandate the CRO to complete its remaining technical work by the WT/GC/M/103 
Page 50  
 
end of 2007, completing the technical issues in th e Committee, the overall coherence exercise, the 
time-frame for the entry into for ce of the outcome of the work, an amendments mechanism of the 
harmonized rules of origin, and the technical rectifi cations of harmonized rules of origin relating to 
HS 2007 changes. 
166. The Chairman
 thanked the Chair of the Committee fo r her report and, on behalf of the 
Members, thanked her sincerely for the energy and ha rd work she had put into this effort, and for her 
commitment and dedication to guiding Members towa rds the conclusion of this long-overdue work 
programme in a timely fashion.  In the light of the report she had just made, Members had to 
recognize that although important progress had been made over the past year – and the CRO Chair's 
final package approach appeared to have put the negotiations on the right track – the deadline of 
July 2006 for completion of the negotiations on the 94 core policy issues could not be met.  He had 
discussed the question of further work with the CRO  Chair and understood that she had also discussed 
this matter with delegations.  All de legations appeared to be determined  to bring this work to a close 
as soon as possible.  In the light of the circumstances and the views of delegations in the consultations held by the CRO Chair, he proposed that the Ge neral Council continue its work with a view to 
completing the negotiations on the core policy issues identified in document G/RO/52 by July 2007.  
He also proposed that this work be pursued, on his request and behalf, by the Chair of the CRO.  He 
further proposed that the Committee on Rules of Or igin complete its remaining work concerning the 
overall architecture, technical issues, the overall cohere nce exercise referred to in Article 9.3(b) of the 
Agreement on Rules of Origin, as well as rectificati ons of harmonized rules of origin on the basis of 
HS 2007 by December 2007. 
167. The representative of Australia
 said that as the CRO Chair had said, a proposed package had 
been discussed extensively at a consultation in Ma y.  In his delegation's view, only a very small 
number of Members had then been in a position to accept the package as it stood.  A large number of 
Members, including Australia, had indicated they still had outstanding concerns across a range of 
product-specific rules, and those concerns related to  a not-insignificant number of products.  This was 
why it was quite important to Australia that, in th e ongoing process, the entir e package remain open.  
His delegation could agree to extend the mandate on this work as the Council Chair had described, but 
on the basis that all core policy issues remained open to discussion, as well as wider issues such as the 
implications of implementation, a nd that all of these issues would be advanced in parallel before a 
final package was addressed and agreed. 
168. The representative of New Zealand  said his delegation understood that the intention at the 
present meeting was to agree to another rollove r of the deadline for the Harmonization Work 
Programme.  New Zealand could agree to allowing this work to continue with a view to completion of 
the core policy issues by July  2007, and completion of the remaining technical work by 
December 2007.  Like Australia, his delegation had, for some time now, raised fundamental questions 
over the nature and value of the work programme.  These had been well recorded in past submissions 
and statements.  New Zealand was also concerned at  the CRO Chair's descrip tion that the package on 
the table was designed to protect the status quo of current trading regimes.  However, the mandate 
was not to protect existing trade regimes of certain Members, but to produce neutral rules firmly based on the concept of substantial transformation.  The Agreement on Rules of Origin provided even 
more guidance by saying that rules of origin sh ould not be used as instruments to pursue trade 
objectives.  It seemed to his delegation that us ing the Harmonization Work Programme to preserve 
existing trade regimes of certain Members was at odds  with that.  There also  remained considerable 
uncertainties over the scope and a pplication of the eventual rules.  This was the so-called 
"implications issue", and it extended beyond anti- dumping and countervailing duty issues to other 
core areas of trade policy, such as SPS and labelling.  If it were agreed that these rues of origin would 
not be used in these contexts, the concern remained that all Members might have to implement costly 
new systems of rules of origin for possibly no other use than the collection of trade statistics.  At the 
other end of the spectrum, if it were agreed that these rules of origin would be used for these other 
trade measures, numerous policy questions arose whic h had so far not been possible to satisfactorily  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 51 
 
 
address in the negotiations.  Given these concerns , which New Zealand knew were shared by other 
Members, his delegation hoped that all Members would use the extension of work for a further year to 
reflect very carefully on the costs and benefits of the Harmonization Work Programme, especially given the risks Members were currently running of  a non-trade-facilitating result.  His delegation 
wished to thank the CRO Chair for her statement at the present meeting.  It was important to note at 
the meeting on 30 May, with the exception of one  Member, no delegation c ould have accepted the 
entire package as it stood.  Numerous reservations and concerns had been noted, and the issues in 
question were more numerous than  dairy, wine, sugar and coffee wh ich the CRO Chair had decided to 
bring particular attention to.  Views differed on the st atus of the package, but the fact remained that 
given the extent of issues raised at that meeting, fu rther efforts were needed to reach agreement.  The 
fact also remained that progress on the product-speci fic rules remained hindered by lack of progress 
on agreeing on the scope and application of the rules,  and vice versa.  His delegation certainly agreed 
with the CRO Chair that the issues she had listed were the priority issues for work.  New Zealand 
could not see progress being made unless one advanced these priority issues in parallel, and its understanding was that Members would take up all of these issues as priority issues. 
169. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation had no problem with 
the Chairman's proposal, including the extension of the deadline.  The Community was very grateful 
for the CRO Chair's initiative, which had resulted in the development of this partial package of rules 
that presented the best available opportunity to move  ahead on some 60 of the 94 so-called core policy 
issues.  It was the Community's strict understanding that this package of measures was not being 
submitted for approval, but merely being set aside for later consider ation once the other outstanding 
core policy issues – notably, the implications issu e – had been successfully addressed.  However, the 
Community wished to enter its serious reservation on Issue No. 2, the slaughtering of live animals, 
because acceptance of this part of the proposal would require substantial internal legislative changes, 
for example, in respect of the determination of the domestic character of goods, sanitary controls and 
food labelling.  The Community would continue its e ndeavours, with a view to the development of the 
internal rules needed in order fo r it to be in a position to fully accept the compromise on slaughtering.  
The Community also reserved its position on the i ssue of mixtures of wine and of spirits.  His 
delegation looked forward to the opportunity to di scuss the remainder of the outstanding core policy 
issues, including the assembly and implications issu es, which would, equally, need to be solved 
before one could reach a final agreement.  His delegation wished to thank the CRO Chair for her 
extraordinary work in the Committee a nd the way she had led the discussions. 
170. The representative of the Philippines  said that like the previous speakers, her delegation 
agreed to the extension of work  on the Harmonization Work Progra mme.  She also wished to thank 
the CRO Chair for her tireless efforts, and the time and energy spent on trying to bring Members to 
where they were at present.  Having been involved in this  exercise since its in ception, she knew that 
this was almost a thankless job, but the CRO Chai r had taken on the challenge .  Her delegation agreed 
with the CRO Chair's statement regarding how Memb ers at the informal meeting of the CRO in May 
had viewed the 94 core policy issues.  At that meeting, quite a number of delegations had been 
prepared to accept the final packag e with the caveat that this would be a compromise solution, with no 
changes on any of the issues that were under discu ssion.  However, as one had heard at the present 
meeting, some delegations had ha d other concerns.  The Philippin es believed that the constructive 
approach Members of the Committee had taken refl ected the pragmatism that was now needed to 
bring to a close this work with its long history of  more than 10 years and eight missed deadlines.  Her 
delegation also shared the CRO Chair's hope that the present year would be different, and that all 
Members would show a strong political will to bring this  discussion to a close.  If this were not to be 
the case, she agreed with New Zealand that at some point at the end of the extension period, Members might need to rethink this whole exercise. 
171. The representative of the United States
 said his delegation acknowl edged with appreciation 
the considerable efforts of the CRO Chair in as sembling a well-balanced package of non-preferential 
rules of origin for 84 of the 94 core policy issues c overing agricultural products, textiles, steel, cement WT/GC/M/103 
Page 52  
 
and chemicals.  The CRO Chair's compromise package mirrored the broad interests of all Members – reflecting give-and-take among all–  and represented an important a dvancement in the Harmonization 
Work Programme negotiations which had brought Members closer to their conclusion.  His delegation 
had worked collaboratively and constructively with the CRO Chair and with many Members to craft a 
compromise package that enjoyed the support of a maximum number of Members.  Moreover, the 
United States believed that the CRO Chair's pack age was the only workable solution which properly 
balanced Members' varied interests across all of th e covered sectors.  For this reason, his delegation 
would have serious concerns a bout holding open the Chair’s compromise package for "re-balancing" 
during the next phase of the Harmonized Work Pr ogramme negotiations.  On textiles, the United 
States was still conducting consultations and could not at the present time fully endorse the CRO 
Chair's proposed textile rules for all products.  It was continuing to consult intensively with its textile 
and apparel industry and would pr ovide updates to the CRO, as warranted.  During the next phase of 
the Harmonization Work Programme negotiations, th e United States looked forward to continuing to 
work constructively with the CRO Chair and with a ll Members on the rules of origin for the assembly 
of machinery, and towards a satisfactory resolution of  the crucial implications issue, which was of the 
utmost importance to the United States.  The Unite d States believed that the CRO Chair had proposed 
a realistic timetable within which Members should be able to resolve all remain ing core policy issues.  
It looked forward to continuing to working with the CRO Chair and with all Members during the next 
phase of work. 
172. The representative of Mexico
 thanked the CRO Chair for her great efforts which, 
unfortunately, had not been fully compensated by an agreement within the established deadline.  
Mexico hoped that in the near future this would happen.  However, even if great progress had been 
made in the CRO, various delegati ons had problems on various issues, and Members therefore had to 
continue to seek agreement on each one of these pr oblems.  This was why Mexico agreed not only 
with extending the deadline, but al so that discussion had to be pur sued on the different issues, 
including all those which remained pending out of  the 84 which had been taken up until the present.  
The extension of the deadline would help Member s achieve agreement.  However, one issue was 
fundamental, and this was the implications issue.  This issue had a direct link with the issue of 
specific rules of origin for each one of the products.  This was why Members also had to come to an 
agreement on this matter. 
173. The representative of India  thanked the CRO Chair for her report and said that his delegation 
supported the continuation of the Harmonization Work Programme for another year.  These 
negotiations had been going on for more than 10 ye ars without any substantial breakthrough.  The 
course proposed by the CRO Chair was an effectiv e way forward even though it involved elements of 
compromise on the part of all Members.  His delegation had supporte d this course on the 
understanding that the package would be accepted as  a whole by all Members, including India.  He 
did not, at the present stage, wish to go into deta ils of the specific issues, such as implications or 
product-specific issues.  The approach suggested by the CRO Chair needed to be encouraged.  A 
piecemeal removal of elements inconvenient to  some Members would undermine the premise on 
which this approach was based. 
174. The representative of Guatemala  thanked the CRO Chair for her report, and agreed with the 
extension of the mandate as she had suggested.  Hi s delegation recognized and wished to thank the 
CRO Chair for all the efforts she had made to fulf il the mandate established by the General Council.  
It knew that the work had not been easy, and that th e harmonization of rules of origin was a technical 
and very complex issue.  This was why the process took time to complete.  His delegation was also 
grateful for the document (JOB(06)/Rev.2/Add.1) which contained the different positions of the 
Members involved in this process.  His delegation was absolutely certain that if Members continued 
this work as they had to date – in a constructiv e and positive way – they would meet their objective 
and would achieve final results that could be presen ted to the General Council.  Guatemala was more 
than ready to continue the work and would give full support to the CRO Chair in her very difficult 
task.  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 53 
 
 
175. The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked the CRO Chair for her valiant efforts.  His 
delegation wished to reassure her that it supporte d her proposal for an extended deadline.  Hong 
Kong, China remained committed to working closely with the CRO Chair and with all Members.  His 
delegation thanked New Zealand for the very articulate and precise description of the policy 
implications.  Hong Kong, China shared tho se views on the importance of these issues.  His 
delegation would continue to participate construc tively in the coming consultations on both core 
policy and implications issues, with a view to achieving a successful conclusion of the Harmonization 
Work Programme by the new deadline. 
176. The representative of Japan  thanked the CRO Chair for her great efforts.  Japan accepted her 
final package proposal on the condition that two points – SPS and labelling, and producing wine from 
grape must – would be ensured in the implementa tion of the harmonized non-preferential rules of 
origin.  Japan's views on these two points were descr ibed in JOB(06)/86/REV. 2/Add.1, pa ragraphs 6-
9.  Although Japanese industries were not completely satisfied with several i ssues in this package, 
Japan still accepted it, because this was the time to make a decision a nd proceed to the next stage to 
complete the Harmonization Work Programme.  Japan st ood ready to continue to engage in this work 
in order to finalize it as early as possible. 
177. The General Council took note  of the statements and agreed  to the Chairman's proposal. 
12. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Report of the Committee on its 
meeting of June 2006 (WT/BFA/87)  
178. The Chairman  drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee on its meeting in 
June 2006, contained in WT/BFA/87 
179. Mr March (Spain), Chairman of the Comm ittee on Budget, Finance and Administration , said 
that the agenda for this meeting had included (i ) various administrative up-dates and progress reports; 
(ii) an oral report on the New WTO Annexe; ( iii) the 2006 adjustment of the WTO Dependency 
Allowances; and (vi) Other Business.  In th e Human Resources Progress Report, the Committee had 
been informed on various human resources matters, including the adjustment of the net salaries 
corresponding to an average increase of 2.9 per cen t in accordance with Annex B of the WTO Staff 
Regulations.  With regard to the Performance Aw ard System, 25.8 per cent of the staff had been 
awarded a bonus.  With respect to Trust Funds , Members had been informed that additional 
contributions of Sw F 1.2 million were urgently n eeded in addition to the outstanding pledges of 
Sw F 4.9 million, in order to meet the target amount of Sw F 24 million received in the bank by the end of June.  Furthermore, it was pointed out that in  order to be able to implement technical activities 
for 2007, a reserve of 25 per cent of the target amount , i.e. Sw F 6 million, was needed by the end of 
December 2006.  With regard to the New WTO A nnexe, the Director-General had informed the 
Committee that, after a thorough analysis of th e way the WTO operated, he had come to the 
conclusion that the most efficient way for the WT O to function was under one roof.  Two different 
sites not only posed constraints on delegations and staff, but also increased operating costs 
significantly.  Therefore, different possibilities had be en examined:  first, an extension of the CWR in 
several configurations;  second, densifying the CWR;   and third, a new site for the WTO in Geneva 
(Greenfield).  Members had requested more info rmation on costs and benefits of the different 
solutions.  Some Members had referred to the clear decision by the General Council on building 
WTO II and had pointed out that a quick solution with respect to WTO II should be taken, avoiding an additional delay with its associated financial risk s.  Several members had also considered that a 
new Annexe would not be incompatib le with the chance to have, in due  course, a single venue.  It was 
decided at the meeting to continue studying this issue in subsequent meetings of the Committee.  The Dependency Allowances had been recalculated and applied provisionally as  of 1 January 2006, 
pending the approval of the Genera l Council under Staff Regulation 13.2.  Under Other Business, the 
Chairman had explained that as soon as the scope for the JPO Scheme was identified, delegations WT/GC/M/103 
Page 54  
 
which had expressed an interest in the programme would be contacted.  He drew attention to the recommendation in paragraph 25 of  the Committee's report requiring a decision by the General Council. 
180. The General Council took note
 of the statement, approved  the Budget Committee's specific 
recommendation in paragraph 25 of the re port in document WT/BFA/87, and adopted  the report. 
13. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement 
(a) Introduction of Harmonized system 1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff concessions – 
Requests for extensions of waivers - Arge ntina (G/L/769 and G/C/W/547 and Corr.1) and 
Panama (G/L/768 and G/C/W/546) 
181. The Chairman  drew attention to the requests from Ar gentina and Panama for waivers for the 
introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into WTO Schedules of tariff concessions, and to 
the respective draft decisions in documents G/C/W/547 and Corr.1, and G/C/W/546.  These requests 
had been considered by the Council for Trade in Good s at its meeting on 9 May.  In the absence of the 
Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, and on his request and behalf, he reported that the 
Goods Council on 9 May had approved the draft D ecisions in G/C/W/547 and Corr.1 and G/C/W/546 
and had recommended that these draft Decisions be forwarded to the Genera l Council for adoption.  
On this basis, he proposed that, in accordance w ith the Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX 
and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in Nove mber 1995 (WT/L/93), the General Council adopt the 
draft Decisions in G/C/W/546 and G/C/W/547 and Corr.1. 
182. The General Council so agreed .10 
(b) Senegal – Customs Valuation Agreement – Request for extension of waiver (WT/L/571, 
G/C/W/523, G/C/W/524, G/C/W/551) 
183. The Chairman  drew attention to the request from Se negal for extension of its waiver on 
minimum values in regard to the Customs Valuati on Agreement, contained in G/C/W/524, and to the 
related draft Decision in G/C/W/551 and Corr.1.  Th is request had been considered by the Council for 
Trade in Goods at its meeting on 9 May.  In the absence of the Chairman of the Council for Trade in 
Goods, and on his request and behalf, he reporte d that the Goods Council on 9 May had approved the 
draft Decision in G/C/W/551 and Corr.1 and had r ecommended that this draft Decision be forwarded 
to the General Council for adoption.  On this basi s, he proposed that, in accordance with the Decision-
Making Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 
(WT/L/93), the General Council adopt the draft Decision in G/C/W/551 and Corr.1. 
184. The General Council so agreed .11 
185. The representative of Senegal  expressed his delegation's deep gratitude to Members for 
having adopted the Decision making it possible for Se negal to extend the waiver on minimum values 
for certain products until June 2007.  Senegal in fu ture would make use of the best practices for 
customs valuation through the use, in particular, of the better use of new technologies of information 
and communication.  The waiver would also be used  beneficially to support the sector threatened by 
massive imports of similar products  and would help Senegal to deve lop a strategy to improve its 
competitiveness.  Moreover, Senegal committed itself to  assess the implementation of this waiver in 
the Customs Valuation Committee at the latest by 30 September 2006 and ag ain on 31 March 2007 in 
accordance with provisions of Article 2 of the D ecision.  His delegation wished to thank the 
Committee on Customs Valuation, its Chair and the Ch air of the Goods Council for all their efforts 
                                                      
10 The Decisions were subsequen tly circulated in documents WT/L/653 and 652, respectively. 
11 The Decision was subsequently circulated in document WT/L/655.  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 55 
 
 
which had made it possible to endorse this Decision,  which was crucial for Senegal.  As all knew, 
Senegal, as an LDC, was among the most vulnerable Members of the organization. 
(c) European Communities – Autonomous preferential treatment to the count ries of the Western 
Balkans – Request for Extension of Waiver (G/C/W/552;  G/C/W/556) 
186. The Chairman  drew attention to the request from th e European Communities for an extension 
of the waiver for the application of autonomous pr eferential treatment to the countries of the Western 
Balkans contained in G/C/W/552 and Corr.1, and to the related draft Decision in G/C/W/556.  This request had been considered by the Council for Tr ade in Goods at its meeting on 12 July.  In the 
absence of the Chairman of the Council for Trade in  Goods, he reported, on the latter's request and 
behalf, that the Goods Council on 12 July had a pproved the draft decision in G/C/W/556 and had 
recommended that this draft Decision be forwarded to the General Council for adoption.  On this 
basis, he proposed that, in accordance with th e Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX and 
XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November  1995 (WT/L/93), the General Council adopt the 
draft Decision in G/C/W/556. 
187. The General Council so agreed
.12 
(d) Review of Waivers Pursuant to Article 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-develope d countries, granted on 15 June 1999 until 
30 June 2009 (WT/L/304) 
(iii) Kimberley process certification scheme fo r rough diamonds, granted on 15 May 2003 until 
31 December 2006 (WT/L/518) 
(iv) Albania – Implementation of specific concessions, granted on 26 May 2005 until 
1 January 2009 (WT/L/610) 
188. The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance with para graph 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".  In keeping with this provisi on, there were four waiv ers before the General 
Council for review.  With regard to the waiver in  sub-item (ii) for LDCs under the TRIPS Agreement, 
he noted that in connection with the approval of th e draft waiver at the meeting of the TRIPS Council 
in June 2002, the Chairman of the TRIPS Council had noted that it was understood, in regard to the review foreseen in paragraph 2 of  that waiver, that the exceptional circumstances justifying the waiver 
would continue to exist for least-developed c ountry Members until its expiry date of 2016. 
189. The representative of the United States
, speaking in regard to the waiver for the Kimberly 
Process Certification Scheme for rough diamonds, sai d his country was proud to have been a founding 
member of the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), which had reduced the global trade in conflict diamonds.  The waiver granted in connectio n with the KPCS was ne cessary for the Scheme's 
implementation and to ensure that WTO Members th at were participants in this Scheme could 
continue to participate in the program in a manner th at was consistent with their WTO obligations.  In 
the coming months, the United States looked forward to working closely with the original co-sponsors of the wavier to secure its extension.  The Kimb erley Process was a very important initiative which 
                                                     
 
12 The Decision was subsequently circulated in document WT/L/654. WT/GC/M/103 
Page 56  
 
had to continue, and the United States trusted that other Members would also support the extension of 
the waiver. 
190. The representative of Bangladesh
, on behalf of the LDCs , thanked the membership for the 
waiver to enable developing countries to provide pr eferential tariff treatment to products of LDCs.  
This was a significant decision to assist LDC exports and thus to integrate them into the multilateral 
trading system.  The Decision of 1999 afforded an opportunity to Members to provide the LDCs with 
favourable and predictable market access conditions.  The LDCs saw such preferential treatment as an 
instrument in helping build their production and ex port base.  In several LDCs, preferential market 
access had brought significant investment.  Predictab ility in market access could facilitate this 
process.  The exceptional circumstances justifying the waiver still existed.  The circumstances under 
which the waiver had been granted were even more compelling at the present time.  Over the past four 
decades, there had been a marked, st eady decline in the market share of LDCs in world trade.  LDC 
share of world trade had fallen fro m three per cent in the 1960s to two per cent in the 1970s, and from 
0.8 per cent in 1980 to 0.4 per cent in 1999.  The UNCTAD report on LDCs for 2006 showed that their exports had averaged 0.5 per cent of tota l merchandise exports in 2000-2003 and only 0.2 per 
cent of total world exports of manufacturing.  Th erefore, LDCs needed an enabling international 
environment to expand their trade.  Developing-co untry markets were growing in importance for LDC 
exports.  Six out of the top ten markets for LDC exports were now devel oping countries.  Market 
access conditions facing LDC exports in these markets were largely determined by the MFN rate.  
However, a number of developing countries had offe red LDCs preferential trea tment in bilateral and 
regional contexts.  Such initiatives could create more  trade between LDCs and developing countries.  
The LDCs urged developing countries th at were in a position to do so, to  take advantage of the waiver 
and to accord concrete measures to facilitate LDCs' exports.  At the same time, they renewed their call 
to the developed countries that had not done so  to provide duty- and quota-free market access to 
LDCs as agreed in Hong Kong. 
191. The General Council took note
 of the statements, and that the General Council would revert 
to the review of multi-year waivers under Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement at its meeting in 
December. 
14. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO – Report of the Joint Advisory Group on 
its Thirty-Ninth Session (ITC/AG/(XXXIX)/208) 
192. The Chairman  recalled that the Joint Advisory Group of the International Trade Centre 
UNCTAD/WTO had held its Thirty-Ninth Session from 24-28 April 2006.  The report of the Joint 
Advisory Group had been distributed in document ITC/AG(XXXIX)/208.  In keeping with customary 
practice, this report had been considered initiall y by the Committee on Trade and Development at its 
meeting on 11 May 2006, where it had been presented by the Chairperson of the Thirty-Ninth Session 
of the Joint Advisory Group, Mrs Whelan (Ireland).   
193. Mr Ismail (South Africa), Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development , said that 
the Committee had considered the report of the Thir ty-Ninth Session of the Joint Advisory Group at 
its meeting of 11 May, where the report had been  introduced by Mrs Whelan, Chairperson of the 
Thirty-Ninth Session.  Mrs Whelan had informed th e CTD that at the Thirty-Ninth Session of the JAG 
the WTO Director-General and UNCTAD Secretary- General had emphasized the importance of the 
ITC as an integral part of the "trade triangle" and that the ITC's work with the private sector had helped to ensure that developing countries bene fited fully from the opportunities presented by the 
multilateral trading system.  She had reported on th e statement by the Executive Director of the ITC, 
Mr Bélisle, and in particular on his observation th at the outgoing ITC management team was proud to 
have contributed to increasing the delivery of ITC' s technical assistance by over 80 per cent in the 
past five years.  In her report, Mrs Whelan had highlighted the ITC's programmes, its research and 
marketing tools and its publications, which we re in increasingly high demand throughout the 
developing world.  She had noted that countries were now requesting more  ITC programmes that  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 57 
 
 
focussed on increasing their trade, and many represent atives had pointed to the important role the ITC 
should play within the framework of the Aid for Trade initiative.  The JAG had congratulated Mr 
Bélisle for his excellent leadership and had expresse d full confidence in the ab ility of the new senior 
management team to take the organization forwar d.  Mrs Whelan had reported that a number of 
government representatives had announ ced voluntary contributions to the ITC and, on behalf of the 
JAG, she had expressed her thanks to the Gove rnments of Canada, China, Denmark, France, 
Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Neth erlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United 
Kingdom and the European Communities.  She had also  referred to the final report of the external 
evaluation of the ITC and had explained that the JA G had invited the ITC to report back regularly on 
progress made in implementing the report's recommendations. She had also noted that the ITC's new 
Executive Director, Ms Francis, had indicated her intention to put in place a "transition team" to 
review the implications of each of the recommenda tions and to propose concrete measures for their 
implementation.  The transition team would help arti culate the ITC's strategic orientation and future 
work programme by September 2006, in preparation for a discussion at an Informal JAG meeting later in 2006.  She had spoken about the ITC's strategic framework for the biennium 2008-2009 and 
had explained that the ITC's Executive Director ha d received a request from UN Headquarters in New 
York to submit a draft of its strategic framework in  consultation with its governing body.  It had been 
agreed that the proposed document would be sen t to members of the JAG for their eventual 
comments.  Finally, he wished to report that Memb ers of the CTD had paid tribute to the dedication 
and commitment of the outgoing Executive Director , Mr Bélisle and the outstanding work the latter 
had done in building and strengthening  the ITC's role as an effective and efficient deliverer of trade-
related capacity building.  He also wished to ex tend a warm welcome to the new Executive Director, 
and to recognize her presence at the present meeting.  She had an outstanding track record in the field 
of export promotion and business development, and her experience would no doubt contribute 
significantly to the ITC's role in Aid for Trade. 
194. The Chairman
 said that in the light of the CTD's consideration and action on this matter – and 
the report just made by the CTD Chair – he would i nvite delegations to take the floor, if they so 
wished, to make any additional comments on the J AG report further to those already made in the 
CTD. 
195. All delegations who spoke expressed their we lcome to the new ITC Executive Director, and 
wished her and the new members of the ITC senio r management team a successful tenure and assured 
her of their continued support and cooperation.  Th ey also expressed their appreciation to the former 
Executive Director, Mr Bélisle, for having led the ITC with dynamism and vigour for over 12 years, 
and wished him well in his future endeavours.  
196. The representative of Jamaica  said that the report just presented by the CTD Chairman served 
to underscore the key role the ITC had to play in enhancing the productive capacities of developing 
countries.  The relevance of the ITC's work and th e synergy that existed with the WTO, its parent, 
was even more pronounced with the importance all now  attached to Aid for Trade.  There were a 
number of other areas in which Jamaica fully suppor ted ITC in its work, including, for example  work 
in relation to assisting women entrepreneurs in  building their businesses, which was of vital 
importance in the context of SMEs, where women entrep reneurs were often in the majority in many of 
developing countries.  Jamaica also looked to the IT C in assisting SMEs to bridge the divide in terms 
of information and communication technology, and w as also dependent on many of the trade tools 
that ITC had developed and which Jamaica had been utilizing in the effort to ensure that not only 
SMEs but enterprises in general were more competitive. 
197. The representative of Cambodia  said that his country had enjoyed very good cooperation with 
the ITC when it was still an observer in the WTO,  and had benefited from its experiences with the 
ITC and had been able to prepare for its accession nego tiations in the WTO.  The role of ITC in the IF 
was very important and would be more important with  the advent of the enhanced IF.  At the same 
time, the role of ITC for channelling the resources a nd experience for developi ng supply-side capacity WT/GC/M/103 
Page 58  
 
through Aid for Trade was also so very important.  This was why countries like Cambodia, and all LDCs, had increasing expectations for the role the ITC would play in the years to come.  Cambodia was certain that with the outstanding record in tr ade promotion of its new Executive Director, the ITC 
would play an even greater role in the future. 
198. The representative of Zambia
 said that his country was a beneficiary of technical assistance 
programmes from ITC and in this regard wished to thank all the developing pa rtners for the financial 
support they were giving to ITC that allowed these programmes to continue. 
199. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago  said that his country looked forward to working 
very closely with the new ITC Executive Director  and her team in ensuring that his country's 
development objectives were pursued with very successful outcomes. 
200. The representative of Romania  said that for her country, the ITC was one of the most 
important providers of technical assistance. Romani a wished to thank the new Executive Director for 
the fact that on 18 July, a new project of technical assistance to Romania had been launched together 
with the ITC and with the financ ial contribution of Switzerland. 
201. The representative of Haiti  said that his country relied a lot on the ITC partnership, and had 
benefited in the past from support and assistance fro m the ITC.  The ITC had intervened in the 
promotion of mangos on the American market and was currently helping Haiti to extend the presence 
of this product in European markets.  For all th ese reasons, his delegation wished to thank all the 
experts of the ITC for the services they were offering his country. 
202. The representative of Rwanda  wished Mr Bélisle all the best  in his future endeavours and 
assured the new Executive Director and her team of his delega tion's full support. 
203. The representative of Guatemala  said the ITC and UNCTAD were clearly important pillars 
for the work carried out in the WTO.  The s upport and the assistance provided to governments and 
private sectors were basic tools for the understanding  of international rules and their implementation 
at the national and international level.  This was why the traditional cooperation between the WTO, 
UNCTAD and ITC was very important to the practice of international trade.  His delegation was 
certain that the new Executive Director would conti nue the excellent work undertaken at the ITC by 
Mr Bélisle.  Guatemala was confident that the IT C, UNCTAD and the WTO – despite their different 
areas of responsibility and the different focuses in th eir work – were complementary.  It was quite 
clear that the mission of the three organizations was to improve the resources of all developing 
countries, helping them to reap the benefits from international trade. 
204. The representative of Pakistan  said that his country had also been a beneficiary of the ITC's 
technical assistance activities in the recent past and had seen that that the ITC implemented the 
programmes with skill and professionalism.  With the ITC's expertise, its involvement in the Aid-for-
Trade package would be of great assistance.   
205. The Chairman  said that prior to concluding on this ite m, he wished to echo the sentiments that 
had been expressed by delegations to  Mr Bélisle and Mrs Francis, and wished the latter the best in her 
very important endeavours as Executive Director of the ITC. 
206. Mrs Francis (Jamaica), Executive Director of the ITC , speaking as an observer , said she 
wished to thank all who had spoken for their comme nts.  She welcomed the challenge of following on 
the very good work done by the previous administ ration at the ITC and to see how the response of the 
ITC could be even more positive for its clients, the developing world.  The work of the transition team 
was moving very positively.  The team was wo rking on results-based management, performance 
standards, the response to the MDGs, the tools and services of the organization, the relationship 
between the ITC and the WTO, as well as the strate gies, be they global or country-specific.  These  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 59 
 
 
were some of the main points that had been brou ght up in the Denmark Report, on which progress 
was being made.  The transition team was on time with  the transition process, and intended to keep to 
the timetable set.  It had not only been in inte rnal communication with ITC staff on many of these 
issues, but had also been consulting with external groups and hoped to continue that process in early 
September.  The team had met w ith the Group of 77 in China.  It had begun preliminary discussions 
with GRULAC, ACP and the LDC Group, and hoped to meet with the Geneva Group as well.  She 
had also begun the process of meeting with othe r groups in stakeholder countries, in order to 
determine exactly what they felt about the organiza tion and where they thought its focus should be, in 
order to ensure that when the team reported back  in September, its mission and vision would be 
designed in a way that responded to the growing needs of the stakeholders. 
207. She and her team were working, despite the breakdown in the Doha Round talks, on 
continuing with the ITC's development partners in looking at the whole business of how the ITC 
helped the developing world to look at the issues re lated to the WTO and the trade talks.  In this 
regard, the ITC was continuing the work it had b een doing, along with the WTO, on its business-for-
development, which brought both th e public and private sectors together in a dialogue.  The following 
week, the ITC would be in Mauritius along with the WTO, looking at the issue of preferences, as it 
had on the issues of NAMA and agriculture.  She took very seriously the comments made with respect 
to the need for the ITC to continue  its work on the IF and, of course, the work it had been doing with 
JITAP.  With the evaluation that had now been do ne of the JITAP work in most of the relevant 
countries, the ITC would be making some recomme ndations shortly about its own modification of 
some of the things it had been doing in the implemen tation of JITAP.  She also took very seriously the 
positive comments about the tools the organization ha d been providing to its constituents, and the 
need to continue to improve on these tools and to en sure they met the needs of  the client base.  She 
took very seriously as well the comments with respect  to women, and the ITC's role in information 
and communication technology and many of the othe r areas related to SME competitiveness, which 
was so important for the membership.  In concludi ng, she wished to thank Jamaica's Ambassador to 
the WTO for his warm welcome and support, and also  other delegations for their important comments 
on the work of the ITC.  She also thanked the WT O for its support, which had been invaluable in 
making sure that the organization kept on form, main tained a very focused a pproach to its work and 
continued to complement the role of the WTO, as also the work of UNCTAD.   She also wished to 
thank the ITC's development partners for the s upport the ITC had received, because its development 
partners were essential to its interventions in count ries.  She looked forward to their continued support 
in moving the trade agenda forward. 
208. The Chairman  said he wished just to comment that  he did not believe there had been a 
breakdown in the negotiations – the negotiations had been suspended, and participants were engaging 
in the reflection that was necessary.   
209. The General Council took note  of the statements and adopted  the report of the Joint Advisory 
Group in document ITC/AG(XXXIX)/208. 
15. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Lao PDR 
210. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", informed Members that, following 
consultations with Members of the Working Party and the authorities of Lao PDR, and in keeping 
with usual WTO practice, it had been agreed that Mr Gosper (Australia) would serve as Chairman of 
this Working Party, replacing Mr Groser (New Zeal and), who was no longer available to serve in this 
capacity.  On behalf of the Members, he wished to  thank Mr Groser for having served as Chairman of 
this Working Party since May 2004. 
211. The General Council took note  of this information. WT/GC/M/103 
Page 60  
 
16. Chairmanship of the Council for Trade in Services 
212. The Chairman
 said that as Members were aware, Mr Roux (Belgium), Chairman of the 
Council for Trade in Services, had recently had to leav e his post as head of his delegation in Geneva.  
As the appointment for the Chair of the Counc il for Trade in Services was made following 
consultations by the Chairman of the General C ouncil, he had already been considering possible 
names in informal contacts with delegations, incl uding coordinators of re gional and other groupings 
in the WTO.  He was pleased to report that th ese consultations had resulted in a consensus on the 
name of Mr Major (Hungary) to serve as the Servic es Council Chair for the remainder of the one-year 
term.  On behalf of all the Members, he wished to  thank Mr Roux for his contribution in chairing the 
Services Council since February, and to wish him success and all good wishes in his new 
appointment. 
213. The Council took note  of this information.   WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 61 
 
 
ANNEX 
 
Statements by delegations at the Informal Meeting of  
the Trade Negotiations Committee on 24 July 2006  
  
  Page
 
1. Argentina ...................................................................................................................... .......61 
2. China.......................................................................................................................... ..........62 
3. Costa Rica ..................................................................................................................... .......62 
4. Cuba........................................................................................................................... ..........63 
5. Ecuador ........................................................................................................................ ........64 
6. Indonesia (on behalf of the G33) .........................................................................................64 
7. Mexico ......................................................................................................................... ........65 
8. Nepal.......................................................................................................................... ..........65 
9. Nicaragua (also on behalf of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Dominican Rep.) ..........66 
10. United States .................................................................................................................. ......66 
11. Zambia ......................................................................................................................... ........67 
 
 1. Argentina  
 
 We would like to begin by expressing our th anks for the efforts by you and also by the 
Chairmen of the negotiating groups in preparing the modalities, although we must recognize that the 
drafts, in some cases, such as agriculture, need to be  brought up to date.  We  have noted that some 
submissions, including one we recently made in Job( 06)/197/Rev.1, has not been included in terms of 
its substance in the modalities for agriculture.  W ith this caveat, we would like to state that a 
considerable effort has been made and that we have a good basis for continuing the negotiations.   We 
would also like to highlight our agreement with wh at many delegations have said today in supporting 
the consultations that Members have entrusted to you in order to obtain the required decisions so as to 
close the gap between the positions of Members that have stood in the way of taking the steps that 
would lead us to an agreement within the Round.  We therefore hope that the next time the Ministers 
come to Geneva or wherever they might meet , that it will be for the purpose of successfully 
concluding our work.  Developing countries have been very clear that not only have they contributed, they are also willing to contribute substantively so that the Round reaches a safe haven.  I believe that 
the press release today by the developing countries shows their conviction and their support for the 
Doha Round.  We hope that, in the light of this c ontribution by developing countries, those who need 
to make the necessary structural changes will be willing to do so, so that you, Mr. Chairman, can 
proceed so the necessary decisions for reaching an ag reement will be taken.  I would like to recall 
that, as our delegation has repeatedly stated, in 1958 in the GATT a decision was taken to eliminate 
subsidies on industrial exports.  We will soon reach 2013, more than half a century later, when we 
hope the Round will have concluded successfully, and agricultural export subsidies will be eliminated. 
 
 In the area of agricultural ma rket access, we are still hearing positions that a 100 per cent 
tariff cap is not sufficient.  These same countries are asking developing countries to reduce their 
industrial tariffs to under 15 per cent.  We feel that this imbalance does not respond to the decisions 
taken by Ministers in Hong Kong.  We therefore call on all participants to take into account the need 
for balanced positions in agriculture and NAMA.  Developing countries, including Argentina, have 
indicated that where the principal countries are wi lling to go, we will follow.  That is, in both 
agriculture and NAMA in terms of percentage cuts , and naturally, as some delegations have said, 
taking into account a smaller percentage cut for de veloping countries, based on the principle of less 
than full reciprocity and special and differential treat ment.  We hope that there will be the conviction, 
the balance, the willingness, the political will and the leadership to conclude the negotiations 
appropriately.  Mr. Chairman, we will make every e ffort to contribute to the success of the Round. WT/GC/M/103 
Page 62  
 
2. China  
 
 Thank you for your briefing and your proposal.  It is unfortunate and frustrating that the whole process after five years of efforts from all Members has to be suspended.  This is a development round and agriculture lies in the centr e of the whole round and the removal of trade 
distortion in agriculture caused by the enormous ag riculture subsidies is the essential task for this 
round.  Unless this issue is properly address there ca nnot possibly be a success of the round.  Unless 
this issue is properly address, the developing country  farmers will not be able to compete on an equal 
footing with developed countries on the world market  as well as in their own market.  People should 
not expect developing countries to pay for their removal of trade distortion.  It is therefore a wrong 
concept to over emphasize the need for developi ng countries to open their market on agricultural 
products, particularly on special products which ha ve direct impact on the livelihood and subsistence 
of their poor farmers while the developed countries ar e heavily subsidizing their agricultural products.  
In spite of the sadness, frustration and extremel y negative impacts, your proposal to suspend the 
negotiations is a sensible one, so that Members could spend time to review the situation, to reconsider 
their positions and to figure out how we can break the deadlock when we resume the talks.  We 
strongly urge Members, particularly the major deve loped countries, to consider major movement on 
domestic support and to carry out major reforms on agricu lture.  At the same time, to be more flexible 
concerning S&D treatment for developing countries.   Finally, we appreciate very much the huge 
amount of time and energy from all the Ministers in volved in the negotiations, as well as the time and 
energy from you and other Chairs of negotiating bodies.  We hope that the consultations and 
communications will go on between Ministers and Me mbers.  China has not given up hope and is 
ready to fully engage itself constructively in the ne gotiations when they are resumed in order to make 
them a success and achieve the target of a true development round. 
 
3. Costa Rica 
  I would first like to extend to you our thanks for your efforts over this very intensive period of 
consultations and thank you for the information, very sad information, which you have given us 
today.  Of course it is of great worry to us, but we understand the need there is to suspend the negotiations across the board as long as Members can't give any sign that they have achieved the level 
of consensus necessary to be able to pick up the ne gotiations again.  What we recognize today is very 
serious.  We are recognising that th e positions amongst ourselves are so different that it is not possible 
to create bridges so as to come up with an agreem ent, and I am saying that we are recognising it today 
because the failure did not happen last night, nor a month ago – the conditions were laid for a lack of agreement when we dug the trenches a long time ago and when decisions were taken to make these 
trenches even deeper.  Many who have talked t oday about development and many others who have 
spoken on behalf of devel opment defend positions which are merely and clearly national.  I am saying 
that because I represent a country, a developing co untry, a small developing country, and we do not 
share some of these positions, and we do not really believe in what they suggest, nor do we believe 
that it contributes to achieving our development obj ectives.  I would prefer that we leave the 
developing countries to decide what is best for them.  My country hoped that this Round would contribute to increase our economic growth through in creasing in our exports to the world.  We had 
hoped that there would be some essential market a ccess improvement for our export products, be they 
agricultural or industrial goods, in the developed country markets, but also in the markets of 
developing countries.  Some time  ago we noted the enormous difficulties we were encountering to 
achieve this.  That is why the results of last ni ght don't surprise us all that much, firstly because a 
group of countries, developed countries, never accepte d to make deep cuts in market access, not even 
yesterday.  Furthermore, all kinds of methods were created to ensure that we would not achieve high 
levels of ambition – very creative methods or fo rmulas, such as sensitive products, special products, 
the special safeguard mechanism, longer dead lines for the dispute settlement system, etc. 
  It is indeed true that this Round did have the potential to achieve more than the previous 
Rounds but it became at a certain time the Round of flexibilities, the Round of flexibilities of all  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 63 
 
 
kinds, of all colours and for all.  And sadly, the de veloping countries fell in the trap and we reduced 
our level of ambition in market access and we fo cused on demanding more and more flexibilities of 
all shapes and forms and colours.  Sincerely, I still do not understand what de veloping countries lost.  
The demands we had, to demand that developed c ountries provide greater market access.  We were 
also seeking in the Round to achieve significant reduc tion in domestic support, but that this be true 
reductions of the payments and not simply of the auth orised cost or expenses.  This is something that 
was not achieved either.  Certainly the G6 could pl ay a key role to break this deadlock in the 
negotiations and we take it that each one of them ma de the best efforts possible to achieve that, but it 
was not achieved.  And this does not take away an y responsibility from the other Members of the 
WTO.  I think that many of us here have not always been an example of flexibility nor of 
commitment, and that is why I am enormously surpri sed to hear delegations demanding results in this 
room.  What is clear, I don't know who is responsible, I think we all are but what I do think is clear is 
who the losers are, and we are all losers, but more  particularly the developing countries, countries 
such as mine, small countries which cannot advan ce economic development because of course to do 
so they depend on international trade and on ma rket access, so those are the countries which are 
losers.  And I think this is the case of many other developing countries which are focused more on 
seeking flexibilities than looking for markets.  Th e advantages of market access remain pending, 
which are essential for countries such as mine.  And what is also pending is the strengthening of the 
rules.  To postpone these results, Mr Chairman, means to postpone our most important tool to promote development.  Maybe we will reflect over this durin g this forced recess so that we can come back 
stronger, we hope, in the near future, so as to be able  to conclude the negotiations.  I repeat again that 
we are very thankful to you, Mr Director-General, and we would also like to repeat that Costa Rica is 
decided to continue working so as to concl ude successfully this round of negotiations. 
 
4. Cuba 
 
 First of all, the Cuban delegation would like to  thank you very much for the information that 
you gave us, and also for your valiant efforts to try to reach an outcome within good time.  We deeply 
regret that this outcome wasn't achieved on time and that our work must be suspended in this Round 
indefinitely.  This was to be expected but not al l Members of the organisation are equally responsible 
for this situation.  There was a lack of political w ill on the part of certain developed Members when it 
came time to take historic decisions which would co rrect the injustices and structurally inequities of a 
system which only benefits the rich.  Meanwhile, while the tariffs for indus trial goods that came down 
40 per cent since 1945, when the Uruguay Round began,  the tariffs for agricu ltural goods are still in 
double digits, in the case of many agricultural produc ts for developing countries the tariffs can reach 
into the hundreds and thousands.  Developed countries are mainta ining tariff peaks between 350 and 
900 per cent for products of interest to developi ng countries especially the LDCs, products such as 
rice, sugar, dairy products, meats, vegetables, etc.   The developed countries continue to spend over a 
billion dollars a day on domestic support and export subsidies, wh ile the developing countries are 
spending zero because of lack of resources and because of conditionalities placed on them by the IMF, the World Bank, and because of WTO bindings .  Subsidies for indust rial goods have been 
banned for a long time.  That being the case, why do  developing countries have to pay in terms of 
market access for industrial goods in exchange for a reduction in agricultural tariffs for developing 
country goods.  These issues have been on the table fo r years.  Why do we have to pay for something 
that will bring agriculture agreements in line with the rules that have been in place for a long time for 
other products?  We are not losing heart however.  This  is not the end of the story and it is not the end 
of our mandate under Doha and H ong Kong.  While the dates have changed and deadlines have not 
been met, other Rounds in the past lasted much l onger than four and a half years as is the case this 
time.  The negotiations under th e Doha Round have been suspende d but not buried.  We will not 
accept a new mandate until we have effectively impl emented the Doha mandate.  Development is the 
main goal of the international community and has been since the Millennium Summit of 2001.  At the 
time the negotiations resume we will continue wo rking under the Doha and Hong Kong mandates and 
under the 1 August 2004 General Council Decision.  We do not need new documents or mandates.  
 WT/GC/M/103 
Page 64  
 
 Mr. Chairman, we have often heard statements  reiterating commitments to the completion of 
the Doha Round and commitment to the development di mension.  We hope these statements will be 
acted on in the near future and the sooner the bette r.  Cuba like other developing countries is still 
committed to the Doha Round and to  achieving satisfactory agreements but not just any agreement, 
and not just any time just to reach a deadline.  We believe that it has been wise not to set a new and 
artificial date for the resumption of our work.  To  conclude, we would like to make a number of 
essential points.  First, we believe that we ha ve been working under the assumption of a single 
undertaking.  We therefore believe that the suspen sion affects all areas of negotiations.  We cannot 
have agreements in one area and not others as some are suggesting.  The mandates and our 
achievements so far are on the table and we cannot st art from scratch in the future.  I would also like 
to make it clear that we do not think it is possibl e without serious strides being taken in September 
and October and we cannot get anywhere without  a comprehensive transparent agreement which 
meets the interests of all Members.  As to th e deadline of December 2006, we must push back the 
finalization of the Round if there are any breakth roughs and if anybody can make any considerable 
strides forward. 
 
5. Ecuador  
 
 Let me begin by expressing our gratitude for al l of the efforts and determination displayed 
both by you yourself and by the Chairs of the NAMA and Agriculture negotiating groups in special 
session to establish modalities for negotiation before th e month of August, and our confidence in your 
leadership.  However, we must reiterate our disappointment at this new deadlock which has 
interrupted our progress towards conc rete results in the Doha Round.  The main responsibility for this 
new failure lies with the most important Members of this Organization which, regrettably, have failed 
to provide the leadership that we had all hoped for.   My country had placed considerable hope in the 
finalization of these negotiations since, as we have st ated before, one of the positive results of this 
development round for the developing countries would clearly be the opening of markets for their 
export products and the elimination of unjust trade-di storting measures that stand in the way of their 
fight against poverty.  We are disappointed that  no such understanding has been reached and that 
short-term domestic interests have prevailed, a poor reflection of the importance of the principles and 
targets that this Organization has purported to pur sue ever since it was created.  We firmly believe 
that the multilateral system must be preserved, and that we must help it to recover from the 
weaknesses that underlie these disagreements among the leading Members.  The economic costs and 
their consequences will be felt by all Members, but most of all by the developing countries which had 
placed their hopes for change in the Doha Round.   Ecuador would like to express once again its 
willingness to aim for a compromise in these negotiati ons, and urges Members to seek solutions that 
are in keeping with the principles of devel opment underlying this Round and conducive to 
overcoming the current inequalities.  Once again, we ask the leading Members of this Organization to 
reflect urgently on the implications of this new set back and on the need for them to be the ones to 
provide a clear and constructive example and to show us the way forward.  
6. Indonesia (on behalf of the G33) 
  Let me begin by conveying our appreciation to you Mr Chairman for your hard work and 
leadership shown to date, and in particular for your  renewed efforts to guide us towards achieving full 
modalities for the agriculture and NAMA negotiations.  The Group also commends your true commitment to the bottom-up approach and transpar ent process.  Despite our enormous efforts, we 
have failed to reach compromise.  We share the disappointment and frustration over the suspension of 
the whole negotiation.  But  this is unavoidable as the gap in the level of ambition between market 
access and domestic support remained too wide to bri dge.  The G33 has consistently been engaging 
positively in the Doha Round negotiations.  We have always adhered to the view that the multilateral 
system, based on fair trade, just and equitable rul es, provides a major opportunity to propel our rural 
and national development.  This e xpectation is all the more so under this Round of negotiations as this 
is essentially a development round and aims, above a ll, at delivering on the development aspirations  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 65 
 
 
of developing countries.  It is therefore with great disappointment that the G33 notes that, thus far, the needed breakthrough continues to elude us.  We have  worked for five years in an attempt to remove 
the distortions in agricultural trad e caused mainly by the huge agri cultural subsidies paid for decades 
by a few countries.  The overly ambitious demands  for market access in developing countries cannot 
be used to justify inability to deliver fundament al reforms in this pillar.  The G33 developing 
countries are home to 75 per cent of the poor and su bsistence farmers and cannot afford to overlook 
their livelihood and food security concerns.  As Minist er Nath of India has rightly pointed out, we are 
here to negotiate trade and not the livelihood concer n of our constituents. The G33 is willing to open 
its markets for agricultural products, not for subsid ized agricultural products.  The Group reaffirms its 
full commitment to the Doha mandate.  We rema in open to these engagements as soon as there are 
discernible indications from those responsible for the greatest distortions in the world market, both in 
terms of what they are willing to contribute in orde r to achieve meaningful reforms, as well as their 
flexibilities to establish truly effective and opera tional special and differential treatment for 
developing countries.  A great deal of technical work done in the last few years should not be wasted and should provide a strong basis for resuming our wo rk as and when there are indications of further 
flexibility from all parties.  The Group expresses its co mplete faith in the unity of the Group and is 
committed to collectively strive for its common objectives.   
7. Mexico 
 
 Thank you for all your efforts to reach an agre ement.  The news is by no means gratifying.  
What we least needed was an impa sse in the negotiations.  But we have  to be realistic:  if we cannot 
move forward, the best thing to do is to recogn ize that fact and suspend the negotiations as you 
suggest.  Although Mexico has an extensive networ k of free trade agreements which guarantee legal 
certainty for most of its trade relations, this ne twork of agreements is no substitute for a sound 
multilateral system enabling the world economy to de velop sustainably, and providing predictability 
for international trade, particularly in the area wher e the system has made the least progress, that is, in 
agriculture.  All participants no doubt share respons ibility for the current situation.  However, only 
some of them hold the key to unblocking the negotia tions.  Unfortunately, they have not used that 
key, and this has led to the situation you have descr ibed.  The failure of the negotiations this weekend 
is the result of a series of short-sighted decisions taken over the last five years.  During that time, we have all contributed to the lack of results, and the blame has possibly been accumulating.  It is sad to 
note that short-term political interests are taking prio rity over the major benefits that should accrue to 
us from this Round.  Nevertheless, we should emphasi ze that there has been pr ogress in all areas.  As 
you have mentioned, the suspension of the negotiati ons should not mean any reversal of what has 
already been achieved.  The world economy has record ed sustained growth in recent years, but we 
have no guarantee that this will continue to be the case.  It is therefore our earnest wish that the 
negotiations will resume as soon as possible.  A successful outcome to the Round will give a strong 
boost to the global economy.  But we should not wa it for a recession to force us to conclude the 
negotiations in a desperate rush.  Mexico is ready to  make whatever contribution is required to ensure 
the prompt resumption of the negotia tions, but it is essential that the main players set an example.  I 
wish to reiterate Mexico's commitment to the multi lateral trading system and to state that we are 
confident that the great majority of countries ha ve shown and will continue  to show the necessary 
flexibility for these negotiations to  reach a successful conclusion.  As you have said, today we all 
emerge as losers, particularly the developing countries.  
8. Nepal  
  Director-General, we greatly appreciate your timeless efforts to push forward the 
negotiations.  Like many others, we are deeply disa ppointed at the suspension of talks today.  We 
agree with your assessment of the current situation.   LDCs are at the lowest rung of the development 
process.  It is with the certainty of upheavals and painful adjustments but with only the hope of 
opportunities that we have been part of the inte rnational trading regime.  The Doha Development 
Round is to be one substantial step in the right direction, the direction that makes trade serve WT/GC/M/103 
Page 66  
 
development purposes.  That also means reducing the development deficit of the current trading 
regime by making it more equitable and inclusiv e.  When we call for trade serving development 
purposes, we look for effective and sustainable DF QF for LDC products, enhanced market access in 
the services sector, substantial and sustainable suppor t for dealing with supply side constraints of 
LDCS.  These together would directly enhance our  economic activities and w ould also substantially 
contribute to make a dent on poverty.  This is  how we see the direct linkage between trade 
development and reduction of poverty.  For all its in herent limitations and constraints, we are aware 
that for us there is no alternative to the MTS.  If ther e is any, it is a more development sensitive MTS.  
Therefore, we would like to urge all to continue to  reflect on their positions and make extra efforts for 
flexibilities during I believe this short time-out.  An y delay in the progress of the negotiations is an 
opportunity lost to right the wrong by improving the inherent imbalances in the current multilateral 
trading regime.  LDCs and many other vulnerable countries are in the furnace of the fast paced globalization process.  No action by the internationa l community may mean only no additional benefit 
or no additional market access for many countries, but no action for us means we will continue to 
suffer in the furnace and we will be marginalized away  from this global surge of prosperity.  That in 
the long run will also neither be sustainable nor  conducive to international peace and security.  
Therefore, we urge all to reflect deeply upon these implications and do the needful to bring the Doha 
Round back on track.  
9. Nicaragua (also on behalf of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and the Dominican 
Republic) 
 
 I should like to thank you for your report, which gave us great satisfaction, since, as small 
economies, we are aware of the benefits to be de rived from a multilateral system made stronger as a 
result of the Doha Round negotiations.  As smal l economies, our countries will continue to be 
committed to the Doha Round negotiations, to the multila teral system and to you, as Director-General 
of the Organization, and we shall continue working constructively as we have done in recent years.  
Our objective as countries with small economies is to increase our participation in international trade 
and succeed in integrating into the multilateral syst em in such a way as to benefit our development 
and, consequently, our peoples.  We hope, Mr Chai rman, that the period of suspension that has been 
mentioned this afternoon will only serve to reflect on the best way of resuming our work in the near 
future in a positive and constructive manner.  In the work programme on small, vulnerable economies 
we have made substantial progress, within both the regular bodies and the negotiating groups, which 
will need to serve as the basis for the time when  the negotiations resume.  We shall continue to 
monitor the situation attentively and we remain  committed to the Doha Round with a view to 
achieving a successful outcome to the negotiations.  10. United States  
 
 Thank you, Pascal.  And thank you especially fo r your unflagging efforts in the past month on 
behalf of our negotiations.  You are correct when you note the significant progress in all areas of the negotiations.  I regret that some of our other speakers are selling short that progress.  It is with a 
profound sense of disappointment that I take the floor  this afternoon.  The D oha Development Agenda 
is our generation’s chance to make a significant co ntribution to economic growth, the expansion of 
trade, and – most important – opportunities for milli ons of people, especially in developing countries, 
to make a better life for themselves and their families.   That’s the promise of Doha.  We must not let 
that opportunity slip through our fingers.  Sadly,  today we face the prospect of that happening.  
Despite the serious setback that we have experien ced in recent weeks – and during the past 36 hours – 
I want to make absolutely clear that the Unite d States remains determined to work with other 
Members to see the completion of an ambitious Doha agreement – one that opens markets for 
agricultural and manufactured goods, as well as services.  One that effectively disciplines trade distorting subsidies.  And one that reflects many of  the other interests associated with the single 
undertaking.  Others may sound willing to walk away.  The US is not.  In fact, in our offer to double 
Trade Capacity Building assistance to US$2.7 billion,  we will proceed regardless.  We came to  WT/GC/M/103 
 Page 67 
 
 
Geneva this weekend with the objective of ach ieving a breakthrough in the Doha Development 
Agenda.  We came with the aim of achieving moda lities that would lead to substantial reform in 
agriculture in accordance with th e 2001 Doha mandate, the July 2004 Framework, and the Hong Kong 
Declaration.  Just a week ago, the G8 leaders also  confirmed this ambitious mandate when they called 
for “real cuts in tariffs, effective cuts  in subsidies and real new trade flows ”.  Following the G8 
meeting in St. Petersburg, the US delegation went home and consulted intens ively with Congress and 
our private sector.  We dug deep to find additional flexibilities, and we came to Geneva prepared to 
further address concerns that our trading partners have  raised, in particular effective cuts in domestic 
support and a willingness to accept lesser tariff cuts th an we had proposed in October 2005.  But none 
of these are possible without evidence of the substan tial improvement in market access called for in 
the Doha Declaration and the 2004 Framework.   We  remain committed to do our part to achieve the 
Doha Development mandate.  The United States played a critical role in launching the Doha Round, in getting it back on track following the Cancun Mini sterial, in moving it forward last October with 
our ambitious agricultural proposal, and in sustaini ng that movement at the Hong Kong Ministerial.  
We are not giving up now, nor are we going to settle  for a mere shadow of Doha’s promise.  As 
countless studies have shown, and according to common sense and the core principles of this 
organization, for this Development Round to meet  its primary objective, significant openings of 
markets in agriculture, manufactured products and ser vices are required.   And when the United States 
speaks of the importance of market access for de velopment, we speak as a country that in 2005 
imported nearly US$1 trillion from the developing world and is running a trade deficit of nearly 
US$500 billion with developing countries.  Yet we ar e prepared to open our markets even further and 
to reform our agricultural policies – in the cont ext of a Doha agreement worthy of its name. 
  Last September at the UN General Assembly, President Bush made clear the US commitment to a successful Doha Round, and again pledged that "t he United States is ready to eliminate all tariffs, 
subsidies and other barriers to free flow of goods and services as other nations do the same".  That 
offer still holds.  And consistent with the Preside nt’s commitment, our October 2005 proposal offered 
big cuts in domestic support and tariffs — including by the United States.  We are still prepared to do 
more as part of a big market access package.  Unfortunately, what we heard this weekend does not suggest that all others are prepared to deliver fu lly on the basis of the commitments we all made in 
Doha.  Small tariff cuts and layers of loopholes simp ly do not constitute a substantial improvement in 
market access, nor would they lead to meaningful new trade flows in agriculture and NAMA.  Neither 
we nor most other members of this organization woul d be able to obtain pub lic and legislative support 
for such a tepid outcome.  We must do better – much better.  We commend Director-General Lamy for his persistent and patient efforts to facilitate  agreement among the Members.  The United States 
will continue to work with him – and all of you in this room – to achieve the market-opening and 
subsidy-reforming objectives of the Doha Developmen t Agenda.  Over the next few days, there will 
be great temptation to engage in acrimony and finge r-pointing, in fact, some have already started to 
engage in this approach, but that will not raise th e living standards of a single person, or provide a 
new market for a single farmer or small enterprise.  Obviously, we all need to reflect upon the current situation, and together develop a sure path that will lead us to the goals that we all established in Doha 
in 2001.  The United States will remain focused on putting the Doha Round on track.  My team and I 
look forward to consulting and work ing with your Ministers and dele gations in the coming period to 
succeed.  The United States remains committed to th e promise of the Doha Round and to the World 
Trade Organization and the multilateral system.  
11. Zambia 
  I wish to align my delegation with the stat ements made by Benin for the African Group and 
by Bangladesh for the LDCs.  I would also lik e to thank you for the commitment that you have 
personally demonstrated in trying to ensure that  the negotiations succeed.  Alas, the Round has been 
suspended.  But we must never allow the Round to die.  Everybody knows that the developing countries, and in particular the LDCs, had very high hopes of this Round.  We had hoped that the 
Doha Round would help kick-sta rt economic development in developing countries, especially the WT/GC/M/103 
Page 68  
 
LDCs, through the multilateral trading system.  The Round was meant to facilitate full integration of 
developing countries, including LDCs, into the multila teral trading system in a manner that would be 
beneficial to the people in the poorest of the poor countries.  We are grateful for the duty-free quota-
free market access that a number of countries have offered us on a unilateral basis.  But we had hoped 
that these offers would be given to us within the multilateral trading system under the WTO with 
binding commitments and in a predictable manner.  We therefore deplore the failure of the G6 talks 
which have led to the suspension of the Round.  We  can only hope that this suspension will be for 
days and not for months or years, which, unfortunately, could only mean the possibility of the irrelevance of the WTO, an organization upon which we have placed high hopes for the regulation of 
a fair multilateral trading system.  We of the developing countries are saying this to you, the 
developed countries:  Do not walk away from the Doha Round.  Do not walk away from the 
commitments that we made at the Hong Kong Ministerial meeting.  We need you.  I believe that you also need us.  If you think that you do not need us today, one day and very soon, you will need us.  When you do come back to the Doha Round ne gotiations, please remember the objective of the 
Round – a Development Round.  It is about the deve lopment of the developing countries, especially 
the LDCs.  We are asking ourselves the question:  how is it that the Round, which was a development 
round, could fail when it was meant to benefit th e developing countries especially the LDCs?  Should 
we not conclude that there is lack of political w ill on the part of those leaders who are expected to 
demonstrate leadership?  Let it be recorded that developing countries, especially the LDCs, were 
willing and ready to have the Doha Round crowned w ith success and concluded in the time given.  
Unfortunately our voices are not heard.  Even as I ta lk, are the ears of those who hold the key to the 
success of the talks open and listening?  The de veloping countries, especially the LDCs, remain 
constructively engaged.  
__________