RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/102 
19 July 2006 
 (06-3489) 
General Council 
15 May 2006  
 
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 15 May 2006  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Eirik Glenne (Norway) 
 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
1. Report by the Chairman of th e Trade Negotiati ons Committee ..........................................2  
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the 
Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade and Development ......................................10  
3. Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment .................................................12  
(a) Report by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development.................................................................................................................... .........12  
(b) Reports by Chairpersons of other WTO bodies to whom special and differential 
treatment proposals ha ve been referred ....................................................................................12  
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 ................................18  
5. Non-recognition of Rights under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of GATT 1994 – 
Communications from Honduras and Guatem ala – Statement by the Chairman ...........21  
6. Derestriction of Official GATT 1947 Documents – Draft decision – 
Communication from the Chairman of the General Council .............................................31  
7. Committee on Budget, Finan ce and Administration ...........................................................32  
(a) Report of the Committee on its m eeting of February 2006 ......................................................32  
(b) Report of the Committee on its meeting of March 2006 ..........................................................32  
8. Arrangement governing the transfer of pension rights between the WTO 
Pension Plan and the European  Communities Pens ion Scheme.........................................33  
9. Statement by Paraguay on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing 
Countries...................................................................................................................... ............33  
 
 WT/GC/M/102 
Page 2  
 
  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 
February General Council meeting, the TNC had he ld two formal meetings on 28 March and 1 May, 
and an informal meeting on 24 April.  Focussing on  the two most recent meetings, and on the state of 
play in the negotiations as he saw it, he said that Members had collectively faced up to the fact that 
they had not been able to establish modalities in agriculture and NAMA nor agree on the RTA 
Transparency Mechanism by 30 Apr il.  They had faced these facts squarely but without sensation.  
There had been disappointment and a sobering reali zation of what was at stake – the more Members 
moved into the year, the more they risked failing in their endeavour to conclude the Round.  They also 
shared a clear determination to work towards m odalities in agriculture and NAMA in weeks rather 
than months.  The discussion at these meetings and the numerous contacts he had had with Ministers 
and officials at various levels in recent days had confirmed that Members remained fully committed to 
the Doha Round and to making concrete  progress rapidly.  He believed all realized that they were now 
in the red zone, and not far from the red part of th at zone.  All were therefore resolved to work 
intensively and continuously on texts, and in Ge neva.  In his introductory remarks to the May TNC 
meeting, circulated as Job(06)/134, he had provided updates on the different areas of the negotiations 
and had touched also on some issues outside the Single Undertaking.  Overall, the picture was by no means bleak – progress had been made, notably on pa rts of the Doha agenda that were not headline 
catchers.  In the interests of transparency, he al so wished to update Members on the previous week's 
meetings of the Integrated Framework Steering Committee and the Integrated Framework Working 
Group, which focussed mainly on the preliminar y recommendations from the Task Force on the 
enhanced Integrated Framework.  While there had been general support for the policy prescription 
contained in the draft recommendations, it had been ma de clear that in line with the mandate endorsed 
by Ministers in Hong Kong, all three elements of the mandate for an enhanced Integrated Framework 
were intrinsically interlinked and could not be separ ated from each other.  He recalled that the three 
elements were additional and pr edictable funding, strengthened in-country capacity and improved 
decision-making and management.  In terms of next  steps, the Task Force intended to finalize its 
recommendations by the end of May.  The In tegrated Framework Steering Committee and the 
Integrated Framework Working Group would need  to review and take the necessary decisions, 
possibly in June, and then start the next phase of  operationalizing the recommendations.  It had been 
emphasized that putting in place transitional a rrangements was important to ensure a smooth 
transition between the existing Integrated Framework and the new structures. 
3. Returning to the main subject of the present ag enda item, he stressed once again that all the 
effort and progress across the whole negotiating agenda  could be put at risk if negotiators failed to 
unlock the modalities in agriculture and NAMA in the coming weeks.  Members had succeeded in 
placing Geneva at the centre of the process, and we re in an intensive a nd continuous negotiating 
process under the leadership of the Chairs.  Clearly, the process they had put in place had created a shift in gear in the speed of th e negotiations.  However, the engagement of Members in bridging gaps 
and finding consensus had to be improved.  Me mbers could not rely on Chairs to produce 
convergence out of thin air.  They needed to pa rticipate actively in convergence-building by tabling 
papers, discussing hypotheses and simulations and definitively abandoning well-known positions.  It 
was time for convergence towards production of texts for Ministerial discussion in the coming weeks.  
The more time that passed, the more Members were all collectivel y responsible for ensuring that 
convergence took place.  All had a preference fo r reaching this convergence through a bottom-up 
process with no surprises, and they had therefore to move on, and urgently.  Only a few more weeks 
remained to achieve consensus where it was most needed, and the Chairs ne eded the assistance of 
every Member in achieving this consensus.  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 3 
 
 
  4. On outstanding Implementation issues, as requested by Ministers at Hong Kong, he had 
continued his consultative process on all the outsta nding implementation issues under paragraph 12(b) 
of the Doha Declaration, without prejudice to the positions of Members.  His detailed report to the 
1 May TNC on these issues was available in Job(06)/ 134), and he would not repeat it in full.  He 
believed that since his last report to the General Council, good work had been done, notably in the 
areas of GI extension and TRIPS/CBD, which was c ontinuing.  On the other Implementation issues, 
the situation had not evolved signi ficantly.  In many of these areas, the ball was essentially in the 
court of the proponents, and the time was fast a pproaching when Members would need to agree on 
which of these issues to continue to pursue.  He would of course report again on Implementation issues to the next meetings of the TNC and Genera l Council.  Using a sporting analogy to sum up the 
situation overall, he said that in a marathon race of this kind it was always the last few kilometres that 
were the hardest.  Even the most experienced and b est prepared runner could hit the wall, and the trick 
was to find one's second wind.  It could be done, a nd often was, and there were no special tricks.  
Obviously, physical preparation was crucial to runni ng a marathon, and Members had a lot of that.  
The missing element therefore was not training.  However, without str ong determination and the 
mental resolve to overcome fatigue, the finishing line might never be crossed.  Members were in 
prime physical condition to finish this race.  They  were doing the preparatory technical work, but now 
needed to push to the finish with determination.  It was said that running a marathon was 80 per cent 
physical and 80 per cent mental.  Members therefor e needed to get their bodies and minds focussed on 
the finish line.  He was convinced  that modalities could be achieved, although it would be hard work.  
Members simply had to get their second wind.  As a ll knew, looking at developments in the world, the 
stakes were too high for Members to fail. 
5. The representative of Benin
, on behalf of the African Group , thanked the Director-General for 
his report and for the efforts that he and the Chai rpersons of the negotiating bodies were making in 
order to move the work forward.  As had been not ed, Members had failed to meet the objective set by 
the Ministers in Hong Kong of establishing modalities by the end of April.  The work programmes of 
the various negotiating groups had b een rearranged and the consultations  continued.  Far from giving 
up, Members should step up their efforts to achieve s ubstantial and concrete resu lts at an early date.  
To that end, political commitment was needed to reduce the distance between  Members' positions.  
The African Group reiterated its willingness to strive for fulfilment of the objectives set in the Doha 
Declaration, the August 2004 Decision and the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  This 
commitment and willingness of the African countries had recently been reaffirmed by African Trade 
Ministers in Nairobi on 14 April.  In return, these Mi nisters expected this negot iating round to lead to 
real development and take proper account of the concerns and needs of developing countries.  
Members had been reminded of these concerns at va rious consultations, notably at the meeting of the 
Trade Negotiations Committee on 1 May.   
6. Recalling these concerns, he said that on agricu lture, the African Group stressed the need to 
make substantial reductions in trade-distorting dom estic support, to eliminate all forms of export 
subsidy by 2013, as decided in Hong Kong, while  accommodating the interests of net food-importing 
developing and least-developed countries, and to en sure a substantial improvement in market access.  
It was important that this work addressed the erosion of long-standing preferences and treated it 
appropriately by making provision for suitable mechanisms.  The Group also wished to emphasize the importance of ensuring that developing and l east-developed countries had access to the use of a 
special safeguard mechanism for the duration of the reform, which would cover all products of 
interest to the developing countries and be activat ed on the basis of the quantity and price of the 
goods.  The Group reiterated its position with regard to the selection and treatment of special products 
based on the need to ensure food security, livelihood security and rura l development.  With this in 
mind, the African Group, the Group of LDCs, th e G-33 and the ACP Group had submitted a joint 
communication on 11 May highlighting their concerns  and expectations with regard to the special 
safeguard mechanism and special products.  The A frican Group strongly advised taking account of the 
points and questions raised in that joint comm unication and the recommendations made in future WT/GC/M/102 
Page 4  
 
  work on the special safeguard mechanism and speci al products.  The African Group also wished to 
recall the proposals on food aid it had made jointly w ith the LDCs, and to make clear that it expected 
the disciplines on food aid to help ensure real availa bility of food aid in em ergency situations, with 
the creation of a safe box for the provision of food aid,  and that in regard to food aid management in 
non-emergency situations it expected movements of  food aid for commercial purposes to be banned, 
prevented and controlled.  Moreover, the role and co ntribution of the various actors involved in food 
aid management had to be properly defined, as it was specified that the governments of the 
beneficiary countries would have the main ro le in the running of food aid operations. 
7. On cotton, the Group wished to emphasize the vita l importance of this issue and the need to 
ensure the specificity recommended by Ministers in Hong Kong for its treatment.  In this regard, the 
Group supported the proposal for modalities submitted on 1 March 2006 by the co-sponsors of the 
Sectoral Initiative in Favour of Cotton as a cont ribution to the development of modalities for a 
substantial reduction in domestic support that distorted international trade in cotton.  The Group 
recalled that in pursuing coherence between the trade and the development aspects of this issue, it was 
important to establish a mechanism to deal with in come declines in the cotton sector, as a type of 
safety net, until the end of subsidies, as recommende d by the Hong Kong Declaration.  The Group 
appreciated the efforts made by the Director-Gener al and the Chairman of the consultation sessions on 
the development aspects of cotton to mobilize the t echnical and financial assistance of bilateral and 
multilateral partners, with a view to strengthening  the cotton sector in all 36 African cotton-producing 
countries and ensuring the competitiveness of the sect or.  On commodities, the Group drew attention 
to the plight of commodities and noted that most African countries exported a few such products.  It 
strongly recommended, in accordance with the H ong Kong mandate, that the work on commodities 
allow for an effective examination of the different types of situation affecting international trade in 
commodities, such as the structural decline in their prices, export taxes, rules of origin, non-tariff 
barriers, etc. 
8. On NAMA, the Group wished to emphasize that the outcome of the negotiating process had 
to stimulate the industrialization of Africa and fulf il the aspirations of Doha as well.  Africa's 
concerns had to be taken into consideration when exceptions and other technical issues were 
addressed in the NAMA negotiations.  For example, th e Group wished to point out that the fact that 
certain African countries were not required to appl y the formula should not be used as an argument 
for not offering them the flexibilities needed to divers ify their industrial base.   Africa was not against 
the non-mandatory, sectoral approach, but any sector so defined should not limit Africa's quest for 
industrialization.  In this respect, it would be best to consider the sectoral approach only after having 
assessed the formula's effect on the Doha mandate.  On services, the Group wished to emphasize the 
need to take provisions on special and differential treatment and technical assistance effectively into 
account during the current offer/request process.  It also reiterated the need to support African 
countries in their efforts to promote trade in servi ces in the sectors and modes of supply where they 
had potential or existing services export interests,  notably tourism and the movement of natural 
persons.  On trade facilitation, the Group welcom ed the large number of proposals put forward by 
Members on the clarification and improvement of relevant aspects of Articles V, VIII and X of the GATT 1994.  These included proposals by the African  Group that specifically concerned special and 
differential treatment provisions and technical and financial assistance measures needed to meet the constraints and requirements involved in speeding up the flow of goods and institutional reform.  The 
Group requested that the regional dimension of tr ade facilitation be addressed and that particular 
consideration be given to strengthening infrastructure inter alia  for transport and communications, 
among other specific needs. 
9. On S&D treatment, the Group welcomed the report by the Chairman of the Committee on 
Trade and Development on the Committee's most recent special session.  It was of some concern to 
the Group that Members had been unable to fulfil the Doha mandate of strengthening the provisions 
on S&D treatment with a view to making them more  precise, effective and operational.  The Group  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 5 
 
 
  was also concerned that no progress had been made  on Category II proposals.  He recalled that the 
African Group had been very hesitant about the " categorization" approach, as it had feared that 
referring this issue to other WTO bodies would lim it the African Group's ability to cover all these 
bodies and to defend proposals, given its limited resour ces.  The report by the Chairman of the Special 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development c onfirmed this concern.  Pending an alternative 
approach, the present Category II a pproach would not lead to any significant results.  An approach 
was needed in which the African Group would be repr esented in order to defend its interests.  In the 
past, the Group had proposed referring all remain ing S&D treatment proposals to the CTD Special 
Session so that the African Group could defend them  effectively.  Certain Members had given a 
variety of reasons for not doing this, saying that some aspects of these issues would require technical 
input and advice from the relevant WTO bodies.  The African Group hoped that Members would 
understand its situation and reconsid er its initial proposal, which was to focus work on all the S&D 
treatment proposals. 
10. Regarding the US African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the African Group wished 
to recall the importance of the AGOA's impact on the economic and social development of its 
members.  The Group was very concerned about the delay in granting a waiver for this Act in the 
WTO.  This issue had been pending in the Goods Council for over a year despite numerous 
consultations.  At the fourth session of the Conference of African Trade Ministers held in Nairobi on 12-14 April, Ministers had urged Members to speed  up the process of granting a waiver to AGOA and 
to complete this process at the present meeting at the latest.  The Group wished to thank all Members 
who had understood the message addressed to them at  the most recent meeting of the Goods Council 
under the agenda item concerning waivers, partic ularly in respect of AGOA, and who had shown 
flexibility in order to facilitate an early settlement of  this issue.  The African Group asked Members to 
consider this request positively at the earliest possible opportunity.  On Aid for Trade, the Group 
recalled the importance of the mandate on Aid for Tr ade, set forth in paragraph 57 of the Hong Kong 
Declaration, and emphasized that the recommendati ons and conclusions resulting from the work of 
the Aid for Trade Task Force had to enable African  countries and LDCs to remove the constraints on 
the production and export of their products, to develop production infrastructure, to build institutional capacity, to improve competitiveness and to address ad justment costs.  These were some of the 
African Group's expectations and c oncerns, which he hoped would be ta ken into consideration in the 
work currently under way in the negotiations.  He strongly hoped that work would proceed faster and 
lead to a satisfactory and balan ced outcome to the negotiations. 
11. The representative of Chad
, on behalf of the co-sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in Favour 
of Cotton , thanked the Director-General for his assessmen t of progress in the negotiations and for his 
unstinting efforts to move the work forward.  According to that assessment, work was behind 
schedule in terms of the deadline for the preparation of modalities.  This further delayed settlement of 
the cotton issue and was detrimental to these countri es' cotton producers, who continued to suffer the 
consequences of the fall in cotton prices on the in ternational market.  The co-sponsors of the Cotton 
Initiative therefore urged Members to expedite wo rk with a view to achieving full modalities as 
rapidly as possible.  He recalled that, as part of  their contribution to the preparatory work on 
modalities, on 1 March the co-sponsors of the Co tton Initiative had submitted draft modalities for a 
substantial reduction in domestic support measures.   These draft modalities had been approved by 
African Trade Ministers at the fourth session of their Conference in Nairobi on 12-14 April.  In the 
course of their proceedings, Ministers had highlight ed the need to achieve full modalities on cotton at 
the same time as those on Agricultu re, so as to ensure that the importance and urgency of this issue 
for the African countries, in socio-economic terms,  were taken into account.  The submission by the 
co-sponsors of the Cotton Initiative contained an ou tline of cotton-related outcomes as compared to 
outcomes in Agriculture, in terms of the leve l of reduction of domestic support measures and 
implementation time-lines.  This proposal was based  on the mandate regarding cotton in paragraph 11 
of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  The co-s ponsors trusted that this proposal would be taken 
into account in the ongoing negotiations.  Moreover,  in view of the coherence between the trade-WT/GC/M/102 
Page 6  
 
  related and the development aspects of the cott on issue, the proposal tabled by the co-sponsors 
recommended the establishment of a task force to  put forward proposals for the setting up of the 
mechanism to deal with the defic it in the cotton sector.  This  proposal aimed to give effect to 
paragraph 12 of the Hong Kong Declaration on the est ablishment of such a mechanism.  A decision 
on this matter should preferably be reached as rapidl y as possible, so as to ensure that the results of 
the work done by the task force were available by the end of July 2006. 
12. The representative of Cuba
 said it had been nearly five months since the resumption of the 
negotiations, and there was still no sign of any conv ergence on the central issues of the modalities.  
Not all Members were equally to blame for this deadlock.  The responsibility lay essentially with the 
developed countries, the chief proponents of liberal ization, who would have to give more to the 
developing countries if they hoped to fulfil the ag reed development mandate.  It was worrying that 
certain developed countries should be bent on reinterpreting and alte ring the previously established 
mandates – for example, in the case of special products and special safeguard measures, and on 
limiting the use of what constituted development tools when applying the final results of this round.  
It was also of concern that, as a number of recent reports prepared by international organizations and 
non-governmental organizations had noted, almost 80 per cent of the benefits of the current proposals 
from this round would go to developed countries.  This was absurd, given that this was a  
"development" Round.  The issue of development was in this organization to stay – it was not a temporary cyclical element.  Developing countri es could not achieve development in the space of a 
few years, or in the time it took to implement the re sults of a round.  Agriculture continued to be the 
key issue in the negotiations and one of the main  priorities for developing countries, since it 
represented 70 per cent of employment in the low-income countries and 30 per cent in the medium-
income countries, as opposed to only 4 per cent in the high-income or developed countries.  At the 
same time, the negotiations should not  be held hostage to the establishment of arbitrary dates.  It was 
unrealistic to think that what had not been achieved in more than four months of hard work was going 
to be achieved through marathon sessions of various  committees and informal, small-group meetings.  
The dearth of results also meant that time was running out.  One could not scale back the development 
dimension agreed in Doha – any erosion of the Doha mandate was unacceptable – nor could one cast 
aside the interests of the developing countries,  whose people were living in poverty and which 
represented the majority of the Members of this organization and of the world's population.  This 
meant, among other things, that Members had to  agree on horizontal and specific S&D treatment 
provisions that were precise, effective and opera tional;  seek lasting solutions to the issue of 
preference erosion;  give proper effect to the Hong Kong decision to grant genuine tariff- and quota-
free access to LDC exports;  address the particular ities and vulnerabilities of small economies;  settle 
the cotton issue;  and make progress on issues relati ng to technology transfer and trade, debt and 
finance, the elimination of arbitrary political restrictions on exports, discrimination in trade 
facilitation, and non-tariff barriers. 
13. The possibility of extending the round had to be  considered seriously, since it would enable 
Members to conclude with decisions that increas ed trade opportunities for all countries, large or 
small, rich or poor, and essentially for the developing countries, whose share in world trade was absurdly low.  Deadlines had b een changed and missed on many occasions, starting with the initial 
deadline for completion of the Round which was to have been "not later than 1 January 2005".  
Ministers had clearly established in the Doha an d Hong Kong Declarations that the priority and 
purpose of this round was development.  Develo pment issues warranted the same "intensive, 
continuous and effective" process that was being encouraged for agriculture and NAMA, because they 
too were seriously deadlocked, and it was Members' jo int responsibility to give them a fresh impetus.  
Cuba was not advocating a plethora of meetings that  excluded the effective participation of the small 
delegations of a majority of the developing countri es, but rather the preparation of a coherent and 
balanced time-table covering all of these issues,  which avoided overlapping and ceased to focus 
exclusively on agriculture and NAMA.  It had b een agreed at the Millennium Summit in 2001 that 
development should be the main con cern and top priority of the international community in view of  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 7 
 
 
  the enormous and growing gap between the increasing ly rich developed countri es and the developing 
countries which, as a whole, were increasingly poor  and backward.  The intensification of Members' 
work was not in itself a guarantee of satisfactory r esults.  Members needed what had been lacking in 
the past and continued to be lacking, i.e. the political will of developed countries to resolve the 
historical and structural injustices and inequalities of the international trading system which was of 
benefit to them only.  This meant that Members could not lose sight of the inequalities inherited from 
the Uruguay Round in terms of high tariffs and mi llions of dollars worth of domestic support and 
export subsidies on the part of the developed countr ies – in contrast to developing countries – in 
agriculture and NAMA.  It was therefore unfair th at the developed countries should continue to ask 
developing countries to pay, through increased lib eralization in agriculture, NAMA and services, for 
offers to reduce tariffs, domestic  support and export subsidies in industrialized countries.  These 
offers were insufficient and failed to match the amb itions in other areas.  There was no point in asking 
developing countries to revise their proposals and to make them more flexible.  Balancing the results 
of this round among its different components mean t perpetuating the inequalities that Members were 
under a moral and political obligation to narrow, and ev entually eliminate, if they were to comply 
with their commitment to development. 
14. Since the 1980s, developing countries had been through many painful privatizations and trade 
liberalizations as part of the conditions imposed  on them by the World Bank, the International 
Monetary Fund, and private and public lenders from developed countries.  This liberalization process 
had deprived the developing countries of any polic y space and of a number of tools that had been 
available to the developed countries and had enabled the latter to develop when they had been at a 
similar stage of development.  However, the c onditions imposed on the developing countries had not 
promoted development or resulted in an increased shar e in the international market for the majority of 
them.  In fact, the contrary was true - the countri es that had liberalized the most continued to be 
among the least-developed or among those with the lowest level of economic and human development.  There was no single recipe for all c ountries.  As to the current process, he said that 
making Geneva the centre of the process did not necessarily provide the negotiations with the 
transparency and inclusiveness they required.  Memb ers had to avoid the proliferation of small-group 
meetings in which the interests a nd positions of the majority of th e developing-country Members were 
disregarded.  While it was true that there had been improvements in transparency and in the participation of certain delegations on issues of inter est to them, this was no substitute for the real and 
effective participation of all dele gations in every stage of the pr ocess to ensure that the outcome 
reflected the interests of all and not of only a select few. 
15. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
 said that on a number of 
occasions, both individually and th rough various G-33, G-20 and NAMA-11 papers, his delegation 
had expressed its disagreement with attempts to split the current negotiations into what were 
purportedly core modalities and secondary modalities.  These attempts had resulted in the so-called 
partial modalities.  On other occasions, references  had been made to a so-called triangle – NAMA, 
agricultural market access and trade-distorting agri cultural subsidies.  The idea was that there would 
initially be concessions on several key issues related to  these three areas.  In that event, the other 
issues, notably some of vital importance to the developing countries, would subsequently become 
derivatives of these key issues – special products, the special safeguard mechanism, modalities for 
small economies, erosion of preferences and flexibilities in NAMA, to mention but a few.  As the 
30 April date had drawn closer, it had become clear th at this attempt to split the negotiations was not 
only politically unfeasible, but went against the spirit and letter of the Doha Declaration.  His delegation had objected to such an approach then, a nd objected to it now in regard to Members' work 
in the future.  Although his delegation recognized th e importance of clarifying the level of ambition 
both of the different areas of negotiation and of the round in general in order to obtain a general vision 
of the modalities, sequencing was important as well.   No one group of modalities was more important 
than another.  To concede the contrary would be  to recognize that the trade interests of some 
Members were more important.  It was on the basis of this vision and understanding that his WT/GC/M/102 
Page 8  
 
  delegation had supported recent effort s to bring greater continuity and intensity to these negotiations, 
as a logical consequence of Venezuela's commitment to achieving greater inclusiveness, in terms both 
of participation and of the various issues.  Unfo rtunately, it had noted with some concern how the 
ghost of exclusion, together with disregard for a number of important issues, had haunted this so-called intensification process.  His delegation wi shed to alert Members to this tendency which 
threatened to spoil the atmosphere of these negotia tions and generate further frustration in the more 
vulnerable economies – which would be  the ones to foot the bill of an imbalanced round.  For these 
reasons, his delegation had approved the submissi on of document TN/AG/GEN/17, which was a joint 
communication from the G-33, the African Group, th e ACP Group, and the LDCs on special products 
and the special safeguard mechanism.  Similarly, at the most recent TNC meeting, Venezuela had 
supported the clear statement by South Africa on behalf  of the NAMA-11.  Both papers warned of the 
devastating effects of an imbalanced outcome to  the negotiations on NAMA and agriculture.  The 
aforementioned joint communication stated that:  "T he July Framework was explicit in its recognition 
that the balance in the negotiations under the D oha Work Programme will be achieved only when the 
modalities incorporate operationally effective and mean ingful provisions for special and differential 
treatment for developing country Members.  It rec ognized the critical importance of agriculture to the 
economic development of deve loping country Members … ." 
16. Important recent studies on the impact of the round had highlighted and exposed some of the 
arguments commonly used in this organization.  Tw o particularly important points were made in the 
study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:  First, in its initial overview, the study 
stated that:  "Special treatment could be extended with only minor reductions in other countries' gains 
from the Doha Round, even for countries that are ma jor agricultural exporters".  Second, the study 
affirmed that:  "Another striking result  …  is the possibility that the poorest countries may lose from any agreement unless additional special measures are ta ken on their behalf."  The study thus showed 
that the attempts to divide developing countries in to different groups according to their offensive and 
defensive interests lacked a solid commercial basis and, in the best of cases, resulted from a lack of 
understanding of the effects and objectives of the pr ovisions being negotiated.  The special provisions 
Members were currently negotiating of course had to fulfil the requirement of bringing greater 
predictability to the multilateral trading system.  For this reason, Members would have to negotiate 
clear and predictable rules and provisions, and in so doing needed to show flexibility and tolerance 
towards the interests of other Members, in particul ar the least-developed countries.  Only by showing 
flexibility could Members establish predictable interna tional trade rules.  Moreover, flexibility would 
only yield results in an inclusive negotiating e nvironment.  This was why transparency and 
inclusiveness were so important in these negotiations.  Transparency was not only a value in itself, but 
also related to the very substance and essence of these negotiations, the so-called Doha Development 
Agenda.  It was important to ensure that the curre nt signs of deterioration were not a prelude to a 
decline in the participation of all Members in the run-up to the decisive weeks that lay ahead. 
17. The representative of Zambia
, on behalf of the LDCs , thanked the Director-General for his 
report, from which it was very clear that all Memb ers, especially the developed countries, had to do 
more if the Round was to be successful.  The LDCs, for their part, would not be found wanting in their commitment and constructive engagement.  Since not much had evolved since the most recent meeting of the TNC on 1 May, he asked that his stat ement at that meeting be reflected in the records 
of the present meeting.
1     
18. The representative of Bulgaria , responding to the Director-Gen eral's statement regarding 
Implementation – namely that the latter had c ontinued his consultative process on all outstanding 
issues without prejudice to Members' positions, and th at since the most recent meeting of the General 
Council good work had been, notably on GI extensi on – said his delegation did not agree with this 
                                                      
1 The statement by Zambia on behalf of the LDCs at  the TNC meeting on 1 May, which is reflected in 
the records of that meeting in document TN/C/M/25, is incorporated by reference into the present records.  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 9 
 
 
  assessment, mainly because the mandate from Hong Kong was to intensify the consultations.  Indeed, 
the Director-General had not mentioned that he ha d intensified the consulta tions, which would have 
meant – as his delegation had said at the recent TN C meeting – that Members would have to examine 
text-based solutions, as in other areas.  This wa s because – and this followed from the Doha and Hong 
Kong mandates – Members had to find appropriate so lutions.  These could not be found other than by 
discussing texts.  Bulgaria also wished to disagr ee that these consultations had been without prejudice 
to the positions of Members.  They had certainly been without prejudice to the positions of Members 
who opposed extension of the protection of geographi cal indications to products other than wines and 
spirits, because those Members' solution was to ha ve no solution, and this had been discussed for 
many years now, both before and since Doha.  Thus, for the opponents of this extension, the 
appropriate solution would be to have no solution.  Another option would be to have some other 
solution.  He reiterated that Bulgaria would not  accept modalities on agriculture and NAMA if it did 
not know what it would get on geographical indications.  If the possible solutions proposed by the proponents of GI extension were not discussed, they could not be in the package for a final decision, 
and this prejudiced their position.  Discussing possible solutions as proposed by the proponents did 
not prejudice the position of those who favoured no solution, because they did not have to agree to 
that solution.  The Round might indeed be at risk if modalities on agriculture and NAMA were not unlocked, as the TNC Chair had said.  However, in  order to unlock those modalities, some internal 
problems within those modalities, as well as external problems, had to be resolved, and his delegation 
had always said that one of the external problem s was the extension of the additional protection of 
geographical indications to products  other than wines and spirits. 
19. The representative of Argentina
 said that all were aware that hi s delegation had tried to be as 
moderate as possible, and it would pursue that approach.  However, Argentina had to react to 
Bulgaria's statement, but first wished to refer to a number of issues.  In all cultures, it was said that 
one should not put off to tomorrow what one could do today.  He did not think that in this organization, Members were putting that into practi ce.  Moreover, since Hong Kong, and in particular 
in recent weeks, there had been a proliferation of ideas and proposals.  Members seemed to be in a 
board game where one moved forward some spaces w ith the throw of the dice, but sometimes moved 
backward even more spaces.  Perhaps one could ch ange this game to a horse race in which all the 
horses were running in the same direction and no ne turned back.  Having heard the TNC Chair's 
report, he wished again pay tribute to the efforts of  all the Chairs of the negotiating groups.  As the 
TNC Chair had rightly pointed out, Members could not leave everything up to these Chairs, who had 
made, and were still making, tremendous efforts to m ove Members in the right direction.  However, 
neither the Chairs of the negotiating groups nor thos e involved in informal consultations could work 
magic, especially regarding out standing implementation issues in cluding geographical indications.  
Argentina believed there had been intensificati on of work on these issues since Hong Kong, and his 
delegation had taken an active role.  Unfortuna tely, for some delega tions, intensifying the 
consultations meant obtaining the results they want ed, which was not necessarily the results all were 
hoping for.  In this respect, one could not put c onditions on the advance of the negotiations and hold 
certain issues hostage to others.  Members had to  move forward in a harmonious way.  What was 
required was perhaps 20 per cent work and 80 per cen t political will.  By "political will" he meant 
from all – developed, developing, least-developed an d the small, vulnerable economies.  All would be 
responsible if the Round failed.  The TNC Chair had urged Members to make headway in the few 
weeks left, and had said Members were in the red zo ne, which meant that this movement was urgent. 
20. The representative of Bulgaria
 said he had noted the statement by Argentina, which seemed to 
have taken upon itself the responsibility for the non- intensification of consultations on geographical 
indications.  He had heard what Argentina was sayi ng, but unfortunately could not withdraw what he 
had said earlier.  It might well be, as Argentina had said, that what was required was 80 per cent 
political will and 20 per cent work, and since ther e was no political will on Argentina's behalf, the 
negotiations on GIs had not been intensified.  Howe ver, his delegation could not accept the claim that 
some Members were trying to hold other negotiati ons hostage to those on GIs.  On the contrary, WT/GC/M/102 
Page 10  
 
  Bulgaria did not want some issues, including GIs, to  be held hostage to other issues, and disagreed 
that in the consultations the proponents of GI ex tension only wanted their solutions accepted by 
others.  This was exactly what his delegation had been saying all along – that it did not see the 
purpose of these consultations as being to have the proponents' solutions accepted.  Bulgaria wanted 
these possible solutions to be discussed, and the fact was that they were not being discussed.  They 
had to be discussed, and his delegation could not accept that there had been an intensification of the 
work on this issue if Members had not discussed all possible solutions. 
21. The General Council took note
 of  the Director-General's report and of the statements. 
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development  
22. 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.   
23. Mr. Ismail (South Africa), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development , reported that work on the concerns of small economies had intensified over the past 
three months.  Since his appointment as Chair in Fe bruary, the Dedicated Session had held one formal 
and two informal meetings and had focused its wo rk mainly on two areas:  (i) proposals by the 
proponents regarding the rights of Members to designate regional bodies to assist them in the 
implementation of their obligations in the areas of SPS, TBT and TRIPS;  and (ii) follow-up to the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration and the monitori ng of progress on specific proposals made by the 
proponents in the various negotiati ng groups.  At the most recent meeting of the Dedicated Session on 
26 April, Members had agreed to begin work on drafting a recommendation to the General Council that would recognize the rights of Members to de signate regional bodies in the three areas of SPS, 
TBT and TRIPS.  They had also agreed to discuss, at their July meeting, the reports that had been 
requested in this regard from the Chairs of th e SPS and TBT Committees and the TRIPS Council, and 
to incorporate their respective concerns, if any, into the draft recommendation.  Also at the April 
meeting – which had coincided with Geneva Week  for WTO non-residents and observers – Members 
had further discussed how best to monitor proposal s made on small-economy issues in the negotiating 
bodies.  They had agreed that the compilation contained in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/21 should 
serve as the basis for future work, which could be further supplemented by reports received from the 
Chairs of the negotiating bodies and through inputs by the Secretariat.  In the coming weeks he hoped to continue work on the small economies' propo sals, including on the draft recommendation regarding 
the use of regional bodies for notifications in the areas of SPS, TBT and TRIPS.  The latter 
recommendation would be taken up again at the next  meeting of the Dedicated Session scheduled for 
19 July. 
24. All delegations who spoke thanke d the Chair of the CTD in Dedicated Session for his report 
25. The representative of Barbados
, on behalf of the small-economy countries , thanked the Chair 
of the CTD in Dedicated Session for his guidance in the evolution of what were termed administrative 
issues covering SBS, TBT and TRIPS.  Barbados ho ped that the CTD would complete its work on a 
recommendation to the General Council before the end of 2006.  At present, the small economies 
were mainly focussed on the agri culture and NAMA negotiations in th e interest of ensuring that 
modalities in these two areas did not leave them behind.  In this context, they wished to thank the 
Chairs of the agriculture and NAMA negotiating groups  for maintaining their interest in the small 
economies' proposals.  Clearly, more work was s till needed and the small economies would continue  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 11 
 
 
  their consultations during the current week as they  grappled with the twin issues of criteria for 
identifying small, vulnerable economies and the treatment thereof. 
26. The representative of Guatemala  supported the statement by Barbados.  As Members moved 
towards important deadlines in the negotiations, it was becoming crucial to achieve substantial 
progress in the work on small economies.  Guatemala was pleased with the work thus far and believed 
that Members should be able to find solutions to th eir problems in the different fora.  Further work on 
these issues was divided into two important areas – the role of the CTD Dedicated Session and the role of the negotiating and standing bodies of the WTO – and this was the correct approach.  This 
would lead to tangible results for the small economies that would heighten their participation in world 
trade, which was the overriding obj ective of this work.  Guatemala wi shed to thank both the Chair of 
the Dedicated Session for his hard work and for work ing with all of the Members, and the Chairs of 
the standing and negotiating bodies.  
27. The representative of El Salvador
 supported the statement by Barbados and expressed her 
delegation's satisfaction with the positive way this  Work Programme had progressed.  Her delegation 
was aware that a number of differences needed to be resolved for this work to reach a successful 
completion, and was actively working to achieve this goa l.  It was in this light that El Salvador had 
promoted work with other Members, as the sma ll-economy proposals were important to help their 
countries better benefit from the multilateral tr ading system.  Her delegation was committed to 
continue working with other Members to successfully  carry out the mandate on small and vulnerable 
economies established by Ministers in Doha. 
28. The representative of Bolivia  stressed the progress that had b een made in recent weeks in 
consultations and discussions with Members.  This was important in finding solutions to the special 
problems of small, vulnerable economies.  A document had been produced for the NAMA negotiations on this point, and she also welc omed the reference document submitted in the 
agricultural negotiations on small vulnerable econom ies.  These developments would no doubt be 
monitored by the CTD in its upcoming Dedicated Session. 
29. The representative of Honduras
 supported the statement by Barbados.  Honduras attached 
great importance to this matter and, as mentione d by Barbados, its main interest was that the 
modalities in both agriculture and NAMA take into acc ount the special needs and requirements of this 
group of countries.  Honduras was aware that there was much work to be done, and would continue to work to reach the goals of the mandate from Mi nisters and, hopefully, to agree on modalities. 
30. The representative of Jamaica
 said his delegation's main interest was to ensure that the 
modalities in NAMA took account of the interests of small, vulnerable economies.  To date, these 
countries had submitted a number of proposals, and it was important that a process got under way, in 
accordance with paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Mini sterial Declaration, to monitor progress of the 
small economies' proposals in the negotiating and other bodies.  The CTD Dedicated Session would have a central role to play in this regard as wo rk advanced.  At the April meeting of the CTD in 
Dedicated Session, discussions had been held on a po ssible framework for the monitoring role of that 
body.  A monitoring process that would involv e consultations between the Chair of the CTD 
Dedicated Session and the Chairs of the WTO bodi es in which the small economies' proposals had 
been tabled could be a basis for a very useful approach.  Jamaica welcomed a reaction from other 
Members to the administrative proposals that had be en referred to, and hoped that a decision on these 
could be taken in the near future. 
31. The General Council took note
 of the report by the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statements. WT/GC/M/102 
Page 12  
 
  3. 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 
32. 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 Catego ry II proposals that had been referred to other 
WTO bodies and negotiating groups, Ministers at Hong Kong had instructed that these bodies also expeditiously complete the consideration of th ese proposals and report periodically to the General 
Council, with the objective of ensuring that clear recommendations for a decision were made no later 
than December 2006.  Ministers had further instru cted the CTD in Special Session to continue to 
coordinate its efforts with these bodies so as to ensure that this work was completed on time.  Finally, 
Ministers had also instructed the Special Session, within the parameters of the Doha mandate, to 
resume work on all other outstanding issues – in cluding on the cross-cutti ng issues, the monitoring 
mechanism, and the incorporation of S&D treatment  into the architecture of WTO rules – and to 
report on a regular basis to the General Council.  He proposed first to invite the Chairman of the CTD 
Special Session to make his report, followed by th e Chairs of the negotiating groups and other WTO 
bodies to whom such proposals had been referred.   
33. Mr. Gafoor (Singapore), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development , said that as part of the timelines for the Doha Work Programme, the Special Session 
was to report to the General Council on progress made since the Hong Kong Ministerial.  
Accordingly, he had submitted a report in document TN/CTD/16.  He had also reported to the TNC 
on the work of the Special Session on 1 May.  Th e report he had submitted to the General Council 
was largely similar to the earlier report submitted to the TNC, but with some update on recent informal consultations.  Since Hong Kong, the Sp ecial Session had held two formal meetings and 
several informal open-ended consultations, including mo st recently on 8 May.  The focus of work had 
been on the eight remaining Category I Agreement-sp ecific proposals.  In this regard, he had been 
encouraged by the constructive mood which had pr evailed among Members.  They had engaged each 
other in a text-based negotiation and were work ing towards revised language for the various 
proposals.  Members had worked out revised language  on three proposals relating to Article 3.5 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing and on one proposal relating to Article XVIII of GATT 1994.  At the 
most recent informal open-ended meeting, discussi ons had focused on the two proposals relating to 
Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement.  While differe nces remained, there had been several suggestions 
on possible ways forward.  Overall, some small steps forward had been made, but more work was 
clearly needed on the Category I proposals, as th ere remained deep differences among Members on 
some of these.  He had urged all Members to ta ke a fresh look at these proposals and review their 
positions.  As the TNC Chairman had mentioned, the Chairs of the negotiating groups could not 
produce convergence from thin air.  Therefore, he would be looking to Members for signs of such 
convergence.  At the Special Session, the LDCs had also raised the issue of implementation of the 
duty-free quota-free decision in Annex F of the Hong Kong Declaration.  They had indicated clearly 
that the modalities of the decision were a matte r for negotiation in the CTD Special Session.  
However, there continued to be a lack of consensu s on this issue.  Some Members maintained that 
negotiations on this issue were complete, and that all issues relating to the implementation of this 
decision should be taken up in the regular session of  the CTD.  Given the differences of view, he had 
urged delegations to undertake informal bilate ral consultations among themselves to reach an 
understanding, bearing in mind that the key was the full implementation of what Ministers had 
decided in Annex F at Hong Kong.  He had also  indicated that, as Chairman, he was ready and 
prepared to facilitate the process of dialogue and convergence if and when th is became necessary.  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 13 
 
 
  34. With regard to the Category II proposals, mo st of the Chairs of the various bodies had 
indicated that progress on the proposals had not been  forthcoming because of a lack of engagement 
among Members.  These Chairs would give their reports  shortly, and he did not wish to pre-empt or 
prejudge them.  However, it was clear that much wo rk remained to be done by Members, including 
the proponents themselves, if any real progress was to be made on these proposals.  At Members' 
request, and with the input of the various Chairs, th e Secretariat had prepared a matrix showing when 
the different Category II proposals would be discussed in the different negotiating groups and bodies.  
He hoped that this matrix would he lp delegations plan and prepare their participation in the different 
meetings.  The Special Session had also been ma ndated to resume work on all other outstanding 
issues, including on the cross-cutting issues, the m onitoring mechanism and the incorporation of S&D 
treatment into the architecture of WTO rules.  On this cluster of issues, the discussions at the most 
recent meeting had primarily focused on the establis hment of a monitoring mechanism.  While some 
Members believed that the monito ring mechanism should allow the evaluation of the effectiveness of 
the S&D provisions, many were divided on what th e structure and elements of such a mechanism 
should be.  The fact that the Special Session had b een able to resume its discussion on all outstanding 
issues was in itself a positive development.  Noneth eless, there continued to be deep differences of 
view on this cluster of issues.  This would require Members to crystallise their own views and continue informal discussions among themselves to reach convergen ce on a recommendation.  He had 
informed Members that, as Chairman, he did not have  any solutions to propose or impose.  He would 
be guided strictly by what Members could agree among themselves in a truly bottom-up process.  As 
for future work, he would press ahead with te xt-based consultations on the Agreement-specific 
proposals in an attempt to narrow the existing differe nces.  The Special Session would also continue 
work on all other outstanding issues.  With respect to the Category II proposals, he would continue to 
be in close touch with the Chairs of the other bodies to  facilitate and expedite work in this area.  As he 
had mentioned at the TNC meeting, he believed it wa s important that the work of the Special Session 
keep pace with the other areas of the negotiations.  He therefore urged Members to continue to remain 
engaged and show flexibility, so that the negotia tions on S&D issues could successfully be brought to 
closure. 
35. Mr. Falconer (New Zealand), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture , recalled that on 6 March the Chairman of the CTD in Special Session had written to him 
and to the other Chairs to bring their attention to the Category II proposals on S&D treatment.  The 
Special Session of the Agriculture Committee had held an informal open-ended consultation on 
24 March at which there had been some discussion on the approach to these issues.  It was his sense 
that on the specific Category II proposals relati ng to agriculture, Members were making a degree of 
progress.  In one particular case, relating to Article  6 of the Agriculture Agreement, the link between 
the Category II proposal and the negotiations was rather  express and direct.  For example, clarification 
had been sought as to whether there was no limitatio n to subsidies under para graph 6 of Annex A to 
the July 2004 framework and Article 6.2 of the Agri culture Agreement, and this clarification had been 
given in reports to the General Council.  Indeed, th e July 2004 framework stated in paragraph 6 that 
developing countries would have continued access to provisions under Article 6.2 of the Agriculture 
Agreement, and this reflected the fact that this  particular proposal went back to 2002 and that 
Members were reasonably clear on it.  Regarding other elements, the connection was not quite as 
express, but these were still very clearly matters under negotiation.  In particular, the proposal on 
Article 15.2 of the Agriculture Agreement, which rela ted to transition periods and flexibilities, went to 
the heart of a series of issues that were being negotiated, whether it was market access as it related to special products, special safegua rd mechanism, preferences or tropical products, domestic support, de 
minimus  flexibilities, Green Box provisions, or export competition.  By contrast, on market access 
more generally, it was clear that much work needed  to be done.  Whether this matter was covered by 
the proposal on Article 15.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture, as suggested by the African Group, or 
indeed under the transition periods and the flexibilities provided therein, was clearly at the heart of the 
negotiations Members were undertaking in all areas.  He  was, in a certain sense,  confident that in the 
context of negotiated outcomes, Members would eff ectively address these issues.  It was timely, with WT/GC/M/102 
Page 14  
 
  the reference papers that were being produced, to reflect further on how it might be helpful to 
delegations to flag more explicitly the cross-refere nces to these proposals.  In  a certain sense, there 
could well be asterisks throughout the reference pape rs on some of these issues, because they could all 
directly or indirectly have a bearing on the speci fic proposals made, and he was reflecting on whether 
it would be helpful to do something like this for delegations. 
36. Mr. Valles Galmés (Uruguay), Chairman  of the Negotiating Group on Rules
, said that as he 
had reported previously, while the proposals referr ed to his group had figured on the agendas of a 
number of meetings of the group, there had been  little, if any, discussion, because the proponents 
generally had not taken the floor.  That being said,  he fully recognized the resource constraints of 
small delegations.  Thus, while th e agenda of the group was heavily loaded, including with proposals 
from developing countries, he would be happy to  place any of these S&D proposals on the agenda, 
should any of the proponents indicate that they wished to discuss them further. 
37. Mr. de Mateo (Mexico), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in 
Services , said that since the Hong Kong Minsterial, th e Special Session of the Council for Trade in 
Services had addressed the issue of S&D treatment at  its two formal and two informal meetings.  
Some Members had noted that this was one of the im portant tasks of the Special Session in 2006.  To 
facilitate discussions under this ite m, he had urged Members, especia lly the proponents, to contribute 
further thinking and to make new submissions on the issue of S&D treatment in the GATS.  At an informal meeting on 8 May, Kenya on behalf of the African Group had indicated that these countries had been undertaking consultations a nd would table a document in this regard by the time of the next 
cluster of services meetings, scheduled for 19-30 June.  Members were expected to have more 
substantive discussions on the issue of S&D treatment at that time. 
38. Mr. Clarke (Barbados), Chairman of the Council for TRIPS
, said that since his predecessor 
had last reported on this matter to the Genera l Council, the TRIPS Council at its meeting of 
14-15 March had taken up the Category II proposals re ferred to it.  As his predecessor had already 
informed the Chair of the CTD Special Session by  means of a letter dated 22 March, the TRIPS 
Council had authorized its Chair to report to the General Council that the situation remained as 
reported in July 2005 in document IP/C/36, that the TRIPS Council reiterated its earlier 
recommendation as reproduced in that document, and that no further action was otherwise needed.   
39.  Mr. Kim (Korea), Chairman of the Committee on Safeguards , reporting on the status of the 
two S&D proposals in that Committee, said that one proposal concerned prohibiting Members from 
taking safeguard measures against products from deve loping countries that did not exceed three per 
cent of imports of a Member.  The other proposal  was to allow developing-country Members to 
extend safeguard measures for an additional period a nd to take fresh safeguard measures against the 
same products without an interveni ng period.  He recalled that the Committee had reported in detail to 
the General Council in July 2003 concerning the proposals referred to it (G/SG/64). That report's 
conclusion had been that informal consultations indicated there was no consensus in the Committee 
on the proposals.  In November 2004, the Commi ttee had held a meeting dedicated to further 
discussions on the proposals, but the meeting had been  very short, with Members confirming that the 
situation remained unchanged.  In July 2005, the Committee had reported to the General Council that 
it had not been able to suggest a course of action on these issues due to lack of consensus (G/SG/78).  
In October 2005, the then Chair had personally c ontacted the proponents of the proposals, but had not 
received any specific reaction on this matter.  As was evident from the reports of the Committee in 
2003 and 2005, it did not seem possible to proceed an y further with the current proposals.  There was 
neither consensus on the proposals, nor were the proponents actively pursuing the proposals.  Therefore, at the present stage and without prejudice to any action the proponent might wish to take in 
the near future, the proposals reported to the Safe guards Committee had been ef fectively set aside and 
would continue to be so should the proponents no t revive the debate.  However, as the incoming  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Chair, he was willing to make a constructive contri bution to the process if requested, and stood ready 
to do anything within his power that Members might ask of him. 
40. Mr. Massot (France), Chairman of the Comm ittee on Trade-Related Investment Measures , 
said that pursuant to the Decision adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, the Committee 
on TRIMs had considered two Category II proposals on S&D treatment relating to Articles 4 and 5.3 
of the TRIMs Agreement, which had been submitte d by the African Group.  Since the 2004 package 
had been agreed, the TRIMs Committee had held a number of formal and open-ended informal 
meetings to discuss these proposals, including a revi sed version submitted by Kenya on behalf of the 
African Group, which dealt more sp ecifically with the concerns of the proponents.  Discussions in the 
Committee had shed some light on the underlying concerns the proponents sought to address.  
However, so far the Committee had been unable to arri ve at a solution that would enable it to agree to 
the proposals.  Certain important questions remained  unresolved with respect to the country scope for 
their application.  It had been the intention of his predecessor to place the S&D proposals on the 
agenda of the April 2006 meeting of the TRIMs Co mmittee, but due to conflicting schedules of the 
proponents, he had decided to postpone considerat ion of this issue until the next formal meeting 
scheduled for 9 June.  He hoped that the main interested parties would ensure that their 
representatives were present at that meeting so ther e could be a serious and substantive discussion on 
this matter.  In the meantime, he suggested that Members, and the proponents in particular, continue 
consulting with each other to seek a basis for agr eement on how best to address the S&D proposals.  
For his part, he intended to pursue informal contacts with a number of interested parties and remained 
available for any open-ended consultatio ns should Members deem it useful. 
41. Mr. Saborio Soto (Costa Rica), Chairman of the DSB Special Session , recalled that 
consideration of the Category II proposals referred to the DSB Special Session had been deferred at 
the end of 2005 at the request of the proponents, a nd it had been agreed that the DSB Special Session 
would return to these issues after the Hong Kong Mi nisterial.  Since then, the DSB Special Session 
had resumed work, which continued to be based on a "bottom-up" approach, with the aim of being 
fully engaged in text-based discussions by the su mmer.  At the DSB Special Session meeting on 
25 April, the proponents of the Category II propo sals referred to the DSB Special Session had 
indicated that they had been wo rking on these issues, as well as on other issues relating to developing-
country participation in dispute settlement, with a view to presenting revised contributions as soon as 
possible.  He hoped, therefore, that these issues wo uld be discussed very soon, hopefully at the next 
meeting on 22-23 May. 
42. Mr. Dorantes (Mexico), Chairman of the Committee on SPS Measures , said that five 
proposals in Category II had been referred to  the SPS Committee, concerning specifically the 
provisions of Articles 9 and 10 of the SPS Agreemen t.  Following consideration of these proposals at 
each regular meeting of the SPS Committee and at various informal meetings, on 30 June 2005 the 
SPS Committee had adopted a significant report with r espect to the proposals (G/SPS/35).  In addition 
to summarizing the comments that had been made with respect to these proposals, the document 
presented the concerns underlying the proposals as they had been identif ied by Members, and 
described various actions that had been taken by th e Committee, by Members and by the Secretariat to 
address some of these underlying concerns.  As reported by his predecessor in November 2005 (G/SPS/39), the issue of special and differential treatment had been among the few agenda items 
considered by the Committee at its abbreviated regular meeting on 24 October 2005, which had been 
reconvened on 1-2 February 2006.  Further consider ation of the proposals in this regard and of the 
possible further work by the Co mmittee had occurred at informal meetings on 30 January and 
28 March and at the Committee's regular meeting on 29-30 March 2006.  Regarding the present status 
of work, at the Committee's informal meeting on 28  March, a revision of the African Group's proposal 
regarding Article 9.2 had been presented by Egypt .  Although Members had not had any opportunity 
to consider this revision prior to the meeting, it had been widely welcomed.  The African Group had 
indicated that it was still considering revisions of  other proposals, and other Members had urged the WT/GC/M/102 
Page 16  
 
  African Group to make any further revisions availabl e as soon as possible so as to permit their timely 
consideration by the Committee.  The Chair had urged Members to actively consult amongst 
themselves on how to move forward, notably in relation to the proposals touching on Article 10, on 
which there had been no discussion at the March m eetings.  Regarding future work, the Committee 
had agreed to schedule an informal meeting on S&D on 24 May and also immediately prior to its next 
regular meeting on 28-30 June 2006.  The worksh op on implementation of the SPS Agreement, held 
on 31 March, had also provided some useful suggest ions for consideration by the Committee on how 
to address the identified concerns of the developi ng-country Members in a concrete and effective 
manner. The issue of S&D would also be on the re gular agenda of the Committee in June, as would, 
in particular, the report to be made on this matter to the General Council by December 2006. 
43. The Chairman
, in the absence of the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and on the 
latter's request and behalf , read out his statement as follows: " My report relates to the Committee's 
consideration of one Category II proposal tabled by  the African Group, which has been on the agenda 
of each of the regular meetings of the Committee si nce June 2003.  It has been considered in the 
context of the implementation of the Marrakech Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible 
Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on L east-Developed and Net F ood-Importing Developing 
Countries (the 'NFIDC Decision').  In addition, info rmal consultations specifically dedicated to that 
proposal were held in May 2005, and more recently in February 2006.  Several Members, particularly 
donor Members, consider that the proposal is unviab le in the sense that it d eals with questions which 
are either currently under negotiation or outside the WTO's terms of reference, such as:  the 
scheduling by developed-country Members of their contributions to the proposed revolving fund;  the 
review and establishment of effective disci plines on food aid commitments under the Food Aid 
Convention 1999;  disciplines on the degree of con cessionality of food aid;  and appropriate S&D 
provisions in favour of LDCs and NFIDCs in any agreement on agricultural export credits, in 
accordance with paragraph 4 of the NFIDC Decision.   In light of this, the discussions in the 
Committee had focussed mainly on the proposed re volving fund mechanism as a possible means to 
address the short-term financing difficulties that might be experienced by LDCs and NFIDCs.  
Recently, it became clear that the African Group di d not intend to revise the original proposal as 
previously announced.  Rather, some disappointment  was expressed by the proponents at the absence 
of any counter-proposal, which might have assisted in the fine-tuning of the original submission.  It 
also appeared that some of the proponents fully recognized that certain aspects of the Marrakech 
Decision would be more effectively dealt with  under the DDA negotiations track.   There are 
concerns, however, that by shifting such issues from the Committee's implementation track onto the 
negotiations track, the opportunity for an adequate resolution of these matters might be foregone.  I 
share some of the proponents' opinion that the current "ping-pong" situation between two WTO 
bodies is most unfortunate, counter-productive, and unte nable.  This is why I have tried to break the 
current deadlock by holding informal consulta tions in February 2006, although, unfortunately, 
without tangible results.  During last week's meeti ng of the Committee, I have also suggested that a 
concrete solution could perhaps bette r be reached if the proponents' e fforts were concentrated in the 
Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture alone.  This would send a clear signal to the membership as to where the main thrust of that pa rticular Category II proposal should be first and 
foremost, without prejudging any outcome, and without imposing any obligation on any Member.  From a practical point-of-view, that compromise would have also allowed the regular Committee on 
Agriculture to switch the Category II proposal to a "s tand-by" mode in its agenda, until the end of the 
Doha negotiations.  The regular Committee would have , of course, continued to monitor the follow-up 
of the Marrakech Decision on NFIDCs on a regular basis, and Members' rights to raise specific matters or to submit new proposals in that context would have been safeguarded.  A few delegations 
did not feel immediately comfortable with this s uggestion.  While being fully aware that nothing 
precluded Members from tabling negotiating proposals in  any forum, these delegations indicated that 
they preferred to pursue the debate in the re gular session of the Committee on Agriculture as well, 
because the Marrakech Decision was primarily an implementation issue.  In our discussions, some 
participants recognized, however, that the suggested  "stand-by" option was merely a reflection of the  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 17 
 
 
  existing de facto  situation with respect to a proposal which has been before the Committee on 
Agriculture for the past three years.  Neverthe less, the Committee could not reach a decision on the 
course of action on this issue.  In the absence of  consensus over the proposal as it stands, and given 
the absence of additional inputs into the discussions, it is not possible to proceed any further with the 
current Category II proposal – not even with respect to the question as to the most appropriate forum 
in which some of its key aspects could be better dealt with.  The Committee on Agriculture, however, 
stands ready to consider any proposal th at might be presented to it in future." 
44. The Chairman  expressed his gratitude to all the Chairs for their reports. 
45. The representative of Kenya  thanked the Chairs for their reports on this issue.  As Members 
were aware, this was one task that  had been expected to be finalized  by July 2002.  However, almost 
four years later no substantive progress had been ma de.  Kenya still believed that it would not be a 
development round if a meaningful S&D package was not agreed, at the latest, by the deadline of end-2006.  The reports just presented were not at all promising, as they contained phrases such as "proponents not actively pursuing their proposals", "no consensus", "proponents not showing up to defend their proposals", and so forth.  Some of th e reports had indicated that the African Group was 
showing some interest or had been present to defe nd the proposals.  Given the heavy workload due to 
the negotiations and the work in the regular bodies,  this task had become onerous for the African 
Group.  He recalled that in the course of 2005, and also during the preparatory process for the Hong Kong Ministerial, Kenya had requested that the Category II proposals be brought back to the CTD Special Session, so as to allow the African Group to defend those proposals in that body.  However, 
this had not happened.  The former Chair of that  body had promised to undertake consultations, but 
Kenya did not know whether this had happened, and thus requested the current Chair to take some 
follow-up action.  There had been a  problem of ove rlapping of meetings.  Kenya's first priority was 
the negotiations that were taking place in almost  10 negotiating bodies, and given his delegation's 
capacity constraints, it had not been able to de fend the S&D proposals in the various regular WTO 
bodies.  Kenya hoped that something could be d one, because it wished to discuss these issues and to 
conclude work on them as soon as possible.  The situation reported by some Chairs that it was not 
possible to proceed or that the proponents were not showing interest should not continue.  Methods to 
avoid overlapping of meetings should be adopted in order to allow interested Members to participate 
in the other regular bodies, and to put a stop to a s ituation in which there was a bit of motion without 
any real movement. 
46. The representative of Cuba
 expressed appreciation to the Chairman of the CTD Special 
Session for his report and for the tremendous efforts he  had deployed, which were recognized by all.  
Like the Chairman of the CTD Special Session, Cuba  also believed that much work had yet to be 
done.  She also thanked the Chairs of the other bodi es examining S&D issues for their reports.  Cuba 
was concerned that there was gridlock on an issue that was crucial under the Doha Work Programme.  
The statement by Benin for the African Group under ag enda item 1 had been very objective, and Cuba 
shared the concerns expressed therein.  It was worrying that the S&D proposals were not advancing as 
many countries had hoped.  Cuba was of the view that in the other bodies examining these proposals, 
the results achieved would not fulfill the mandate for Category II, and that the CTD Special Session 
would be the most appropriate forum to deal with  these proposals.  There had been areas in which 
Cuba had hoped for action from the proponents, but  recognized – as Kenya had pointed out – the 
serious limitations of some delegations, in particul ar the small countries.  In some cases, there had 
been action by the proponents but no consensus.   This was a long and difficult process for many 
developing-country delegations.  If there was no improvement in the situation by July at the latest, 
alternatives should be considered that would help  move these negotiations forward.  Members should 
engage in a continuous, effectiv e and intensive process in order to meet other important mandates 
under the Doha Agenda.  A coherent, balanced progra mme should be established to enable all, and in 
particular small delegations  from developing countries, to participate effectively. WT/GC/M/102 
Page 18  
 
  47. The General Council took note
 of the statements and of the reports by the Chairpersons of the 
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and De velopment and of other WTO bodies to whom 
special and differential treatmen t proposals have been referred. 
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 
48. The Chairman  recalled that the mandates for the treatment of this item were contained in 
Paragraph 1(b) of the Decision adopted by the Ge neral Council on 1 August 2004, and in paragraph 
12 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  At Hong Kong, Ministers welcomed the efforts of the Director-General in the implementation of the manda te pursuant to the 1 August 2004 Decision of the 
General Council.  They welcomed, in particular, the Consultative Framework process initiated by the 
Director-General, and took note of the Director-G eneral's Second Periodic Report and the assessment 
of the positive evolution of development assistance geared to the cotton sector.  Ministers at Hong Kong also reaffirmed the 2004 mandate, deepening and ex tending that mandate in several respects.  In 
inviting the Director-General to furnish them w ith a Third Periodic Report at their next Session, 
Ministers asked the Director-General to "keep  the Sub-Committee on Cott on fully informed of 
progress", and to provide "updates, at appropriate in tervals ... to the General Council".  Against this 
background, he invited the Director-General to  update the General Council on the work being 
undertaken in regard to these matters. 
49. The Director-General
 said this was his first opportunity since the Hong Kong Ministerial to 
report to the General Council on the development assi stance aspects of cotton.  As all knew, the 
cotton dossier – in both its trade and development aspects – was key to the success of the negotiations.  
As agreed in Hong Kong, he was keeping the Su b-Committee on Cotton fully informed of progress.  
He recalled that in his last report to Ministers – which had been the Second Periodic Report – he had noted that progress had been made both on incr eased quantum and value of cotton development 
assistance commitments to the 14 beneficiary African  countries and to the Cotton 4 in particular.  A 
table had been annexed to his Periodic Report gi ving an overview of the various developmental 
initiatives underway, capturing bilateral as well as multila teral assistance efforts.  Since Hong Kong, 
he had had informal consultations with the Cott on 4, the African Group and the LDC Group.  He had 
also held the sixth round of his Consultative Framework, with the aim of verifying actual 
contributions, as well as checking actual disbursemen ts and operational implementation.  On the 
whole, he could report that he believed important progress had been made.  First, participants had 
continued the verification exercise of the various entries attached to his Second Periodic Report.  
Second, the development community had provided an  update of its activities, which had included new 
ones, such as the UNIDO Africa Co tton Initiative.  Third, new initiatives had been announced by 
bilateral donors – namely, the EC, the US and Japan – and the invitation had been renewed to African 
countries to urgently submit their requests for assistance.  Fourth, the IMF had updated its entries on 
the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative.  Fifth, particip ants had collectively agreed to refine their entries 
in the table attached to his Periodic Report, so that  those entries would better reflect the current stage 
of the development assistance.  New categories had been created to show whether the assistance was 
in:  a "Project Formulation Stage", "In Progress", "Completed", "Suspended", or had been "Discontinued".  This was vital, in his view, to enabling a determination of whether the very large 
sums of money being spoken about had actually reached their intended beneficiaries.  Finally, 
Burkina Faso and Benin had sent the WTO deta iled reports on the domestic reforms they had 
undertaken in their cotton sectors.  This had been welcomed by all Members, since domestic reform 
would be essential to the effective utilization of the development assistance received. 
50. He recalled that in the table attached to his Second Periodic Report, the total number of cotton 
programs was 74.  He was pleased that this number now stood at 178.  Whereas the amount of 
assistance extended to the cotton sector had stood at US$976 million at the time of the Hong Kong  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Ministerial, it had now reached US$6.9 billion.  It w as therefore fair to say th at that there had been a 
reasonable degree of success in the objective of ge nerating support for cotton programmes, projects 
and activities.  In the current stage, however, th ere was a need to focus on implementation and on 
"operational follow-through" of the reported programm es, projects and activities.   This stage involved 
the encouragement of accelerated disbursements, op erational follow-through, monitoring, and review 
of implementation with timely feedback to the me mbership.  Although there was clear progress, there 
was also scope for tighter monitoring for the benefit of all.  For instance, in reviewing the current 
Table on Cotton Development Assistance, he had noted th at 89 out of the 178 entries still remained in  
"unspecified implementation".  This was a matter fo r concern and showed the need for more details.  
At the same time, it was clear that the implem entation of these activities necessarily involved an 
interactive partnership with recipient countries.  There were activities which could not proceed unless 
corresponding steps from the recipient side had been taken.  This was a part of monitoring and of his report to Members.  He wished to close by raising two points:  (i) meaningful progress in implementation would require a pa rtnership between donors and recipients that he wished to 
encourage – this was a two-way and not a one-way process;  and (ii)  Members needed to intensify 
implementation and to report on it in a more timely and detailed fashion.  In doing so, one should not 
neglect the needs of other Members beyond the Cotton 4 who also might require development 
assistance for cotton.  He would continue his in formal consultations, and the Secretariat would 
continue to engage participants  in reviewing implementation deta ils, and would come to Members 
with more precise requests for information in the coming days. 
51. All delegations who spoke  thanked the Director-General for his report. 
52. The representative of Benin
, speaking on behalf of the African Group , recalled that following 
the Sectoral Initiative on Cotton in March 2004 in  Cotonou, the WTO and Be nin together had hosted 
a meeting where all had agreed that the cotton issue would be dealt with in two respects – first, the 
trade aspect, which was being dealt with explicitl y in the WTO, and the development aspect.  All 
realized that if one did not give these countries help , given the current situation in the cotton sector,  
cotton would no longer exist in these countries.  Unfo rtunately, in the history of cotton trade, there 
were very relevant examples of this having occu rred.  One case was Argentina, and another was 
Paraguay.  Both countries had been net producers a nd exporters of cotton some years earlier and at 
present were net importers.  In order to prevent this  from happening, it had been agreed that assistance 
would be given to African cotton-producing countries.  While Members in the WTO were working out the trade aspects of cotton, these countries require d assistance to ensure they could stay on course 
and overcome the obstacles in their path.  It had been recommended in the July 2004 package, and 
taken up again in Hong Kong, that Members pursue these twofold objectives.  A mandate had been 
given to the Director-General, who had done a great deal in the consultations, and the African Group 
wished to thank him for his tremendous efforts.  However, the Director-General had been given a 
specific mandate, namely, to effectively intro duce a mechanism that would help these countries 
address the drop in revenue by farmers.  The African Group and the 36 net cotton exporters of Africa 
wished to know what the outcome of consultations ha d been on this matter.  In addition, the Director-
General had announced a lot of interesting results on paper that were encouraging to a number of 
countries that might not produce cotton.  However, there had been a lot of announcements but very 
few tangible results on the ground.  The African Group therefore wished to propose a mid-term review meeting to take stock of ac tions and determine what the current  situation was and to take more 
effective action on the ground.  He recalled that a similar meeting had been organized by the WTO 
with the African cotton-producing countries in Cotonou in March 2004.  It would be useful to have 
such a meeting as soon as possible, because alt hough there had been a lot of announcements the 
African Group wished to know exactly what these were  yielding in the field.  The Group wished again 
to thank the Director-General for his efforts to fulfil the mandate given him by Ministers to find a 
mechanism and to implement it to help these c ountries deal with the drop in their revenue. WT/GC/M/102 
Page 20  
 
  53. The representative of Angola
 welcomed the Director-General's report, and reaffirmed the 
position of the African Group, the LDCs and the ACP Group that this was a priority issue in the DDA.  The cotton issue was intimately linked with the deve lopment aspects of the Doha Round, and it was 
essential that Members approach the trade and deve lopment aspects of the Cotton Initiative in a 
complementary and coherent manner.  The Director-General's report clearly reflected the progress that 
had been made, and Ministers had welcomed th is progress in paragraph 12 of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration.  Angola urged the Director-G eneral to pursue his efforts in that respect, and 
particularly commended his clear emphasis on transp arency and integration in the process of his 
consultative framework.  Angola had taken note of  the areas in which the Director-General had 
clearly indicated that additional work remained to be done.  In this connection, while his delegation 
welcomed the precious contributions of the developm ent community, in particular the donor countries 
and the multilateral institutions, it urged them to step up their efforts to coordinate with their 
colleagues in their respective capita ls with a view to providing the detailed operational information 
that was required.  Angola had a considerable trade interest in the cotton sector.  Cotton had been one 
of the most profitable economic sectors before a co mbination of external and internal factors had 
caused it to decline.  Considerable  efforts were currently being made to revive the sector in the 
framework of the diversification of Angola's expor ts, and the Angolan authorities would shortly be 
submitting carefully prepared projects to the devel opment community through the Director-General's 
consultative framework.  Angola urged the Directo r-General to pursue the same level of active 
commitment, assured him of its firm and continue d support, and looked forward to the Director-
General's next report. 
54. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire
 thanked the Director-General  for his tireless efforts on the 
cotton issue.  Côte d'Ivoire supported the statemen t by Benin for the African Group on this matter.  
His delegation wished to stress its special interest in this sector, which was a source of horizontal and 
vertical diversification and, above all, crucial to development of the northern region of Côte d'Ivoire.  
His delegation had relayed to its capital the a nnouncements it had heard in the context of 
consultations with the Director-General in rega rd to cotton development assistance and was awaiting 
feedback.  It had submitted four development pr ojects as requested and had been approached by 
certain donors.  His country wished to thank th e Secretariat and the Director-General, and to 
encourage them to pursue their efforts.  It also asked other countries concerned in Africa to formulate 
their requests to the donor community so that they c ould be considered together , and so that one could 
move forward on the cotton issue. 
55. The representative of Zambia  expressed appreciation for the Director-General's report and 
associated his delegation with the statement by Beni n on behalf of the African Group.  As one of the 
cotton-growing and exporting countries, Zambia  looked forward to implementing some of the 
decisions taken in Hong Kong in this area.   
56. The Director-General , speaking in response to the statement by Benin on behalf of the 
African Group, recalled that Ministers in paragraph 12 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration had 
urged him to explore the possibility of establishing a mechanism to deal with income declines in the 
cotton sector.  Thus, his mandate was not to establish such a mechanism, but to explore the ways and means for such a mechanism, which wa s not quite the same thing.  With regard to the consideration of 
such a mechanism, a process in which he had been engaged, the result was quite clear:  there was no 
consensus on either the appropriateness or the moda lities of a mechanism that would be intended to 
offset the fall in revenue of cotton producers.  He  believed that the main reason for this, based on the 
discussions he had had on this subj ect, was the very dark shadow cast by the failure of previous 
mechanisms that had been used at various tim es to compensate commodity producers for income 
declines.  He believed that opinions, and the ideo logical consensus, if one existed, had changed 
somewhat.  An example of this was the work that  was currently under way in the International Task 
Force on Commodity Risk Management (ICRM), join tly sponsored by the FAO and the World Bank, 
which was examining various instruments for a ddressing commodity price risks.  The WTO was  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 21 
 
 
  following the work of this Task Force with great in terest, and he believed there were some avenues in 
this work that should be explored and that were far more promising than the classic compensation mechanisms.  The Task Force had been examin ing various instruments for addressing commodity 
price risk including insurance mechanisms, and cotton was part and parcel of that work.  As regards 
the mid-term review suggested by Benin, he fully ag reed that there should be such a review with the 
participation of a maximum number of Members, bot h on the side of donors and of recipients.  He 
noted that the World Bank had already taken the in itiative to organize such a meeting, which would 
be taking place quite soon, and in which the WTO w ould of course participate.  He had been putting 
pressure on all parties concerned to provide more pr ecise figures.  As he had said in his introductory 
comments, more detail was needed now.  There was a need both to have a clearer idea of the 
considerable amounts that were on the table as well as for recipient countries to communicate 
projects, for he had sometimes been hearing from donor s that they were lacking projects.  The focus 
henceforth had to be on operational implementation. 
57. The General Council took note
 of the statements. 
5. Non-recognition of Rights under Arti cles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of GATT 1994 – 
Communications from Honduras and Guatem ala (WT/GC/85, WT/GC/90 and Corr.1, 
WT/GC/100 and WT/MIN(05)/9) – Statement by the Chairman 
58. The Chairman  recalled that this matter had first b een raised by Honduras and Guatemala at 
the General Council meeting in December 2004, and s ubsequently considered by the Council at each 
of its regular meetings since then, without resolu tion.  In light of the views expressed at these 
meetings, and requests for consultations by Ho nduras and Guatemala, his predecessor had held 
regular consultations in or der to assist in finding a way forward,  and had reported to the February 
Council meeting on her most recent consultations.  In view of the statements at the February Council, 
the Chair had proposed that the General Council revert to this matter at its next meeting, and that he 
as incoming Chair hold further consultations in th e meantime with the aim of moving this matter 
forward.  Accordingly, on 5 May, he had held furt her consultations to provide another opportunity for 
the Members concerned to seek clarifications, to the extent possible, and to see if he as Chair could 
facilitate a satisfactory resolution to the concerns ra ised.  All delegations who had spoken on this issue 
at previous Council meetings had been invited to the consultations, which we re being held without 
prejudice to any Member's rights under the WTO. 
59. At the consultations, Honduras and Guatemala had expressed the view that there had now 
been sufficient discussion and clarification of positi ons, and that the focus should turn to devising a 
solution.  Guatemala had made clear also that it w as not looking for an ad hoc solution, but rather a 
multilateral one that reflected the criteria laid down in WTO rules and procedures.  Honduras had 
recalled that this matter had been referred to  the General Council under paragraph 4 of the 1980 
Procedures for Negotiations under Article XXVIII,  under which, when a Member modifying or 
withdrawing a concession does not recognize a claim of  principal or substantia l supplying interest, the 
Member making the claim "may refer the matter to the Council".  Honduras had underlined that 
finding a solution was therefore a collective obligat ion on all Members of the General Council, and 
that failure to do so would render the 1980 Pro cedures non-operational.  Se veral delegations had 
cautioned that the experience of Honduras and Guatem ala in this matter, as well of those countries 
whose rights had in fact been recognized but who had not received any compensation under the 
provisions of Article XXIV, had generated a level of discomfort that  could have an effect on the Doha 
negotiations.  The EC, for its part, had reiterated th at it took very seriously the concerns expressed, 
and that it remained ready to continue the process of  consultations to find a solution.  At the same 
time, it had noted that there were differences of legal interpretati on involved, and that the dispute 
settlement procedure existed to resolve issues of th is kind.  On the more systemic issue of the 
treatment of small suppliers, the EC had also reitera ted that it could not unilaterally change or add to 
multilateral rules and practices that had been ag reed in the GATT and WTO for establishing and WT/GC/M/102 
Page 22  
 
  according supplier rights, and that if a rule was goi ng to be changed, it shou ld be changed for all 
parties in a similar situation.  The EC had also  informed those present of the conclusion of its 
Article XXIV negotiations with a number of countries, and that th e results would be notified to 
Members in keeping with the procedures governing su ch negotiations.  It had also expressed the hope 
that on the difficult issue of bananas, the monito ring mechanism it had established would serve to 
indicate whether the new EC tariff had been set at an  adequate level so as to maintain the same level 
of MFN market access that had prevailed previous ly in the EC of 15 and the 10 new EC member 
States.  In concluding, he had to report that the c onsultations 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 to see a willingness on all sides to continue 
the dialogue, and was counting on the goodwill of all Members to help resolve this matter satisfactorily as early as possible, in keeping wi th their collective responsibility under the 1980 
Procedures under which this matter had been referred to the Council.   
60. The representative of Honduras
 said that, over the past year, Honduras had asked the EC, in 
relation to the latter's withdrawal of its banana concessions, to recognize the interests of Honduras as 
a substantial supplier.  The EC had refused to recognize Honduras' substantial supplying interest 
despite the fact that the latter had justified it tim e and again through legal and economic studies.  The 
grounds for Honduras' claim were simple and could be summarized as follows :  (i) Article XXVIII 
clearly established that substantial interest must be calculated on the basis of trade levels that would 
have existed in a market free from discriminat ory quantitative restrictions;  (ii) Honduras had 
followed this guideline and, for this reason, had used the years 1989 to 1991 as the representative 
period for calculating its share of the EC market;  and (iii) as confirmed in two trade disputes dealt 
with under the GATT, Honduras had established itself as a major banana supplier in the period 1989 
to 1991.  Unfortunately, the EC continued to insist that Honduras must use a period during which there were discriminatory restrictions in the EC ma rket, although this was in breach of the rules laid 
down in Article XXVIII.  The EC also expected Honduras to rigorously apply the 10 per cent market-
share rule, which was contrary to what was establis hed in previous disputes, in particular when the 
exporting Member was a small developing country, as in the case of Honduras.  Honduras' statements 
before the General Council had struck a respons ive chord, and an increasing number of Members 
were of the opinion that only a period free fro m discrimination may be used for the purposes of 
Article XXVIII.  However, and most importantly, th ey had understood the true scope of the issue and 
were aware of its systemic implications.  The EC, on the other hand, still faile d to understand that no 
illegal time-frame could ever form the basis of a cal culation that was consistent with Article XXVIII 
and that the use of an illegal time-frame was merely  a way of perpetuating the effects of illegality.  
Honduras wished to believe that the EC would not  insist on using a period in which its illegal 
restrictions caused Honduras' market share to c ontract.  Honduras still hoped the EC would be capable 
of showing the necessary flexibility to recognize its in terests as a substantial supplier.  It would 
continue to reiterate its clai m until its rights were recognized. 
61. The representative of Guatemala
 said she wished to make clear that this agenda item 
concerned solely the non-recognition by the EC of Honduras' and Guatemala's negotiating rights 
under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of GATT.  This was a major issue which clearly encompassed 
matters as significant as the lack of recognition of ne gotiating rights in the banana dispute.  The issue 
was not, however, restricted to the particular disput e on bananas, nor to the EC enlargement process in 
2004.  It did, and would surely continue to, affect a range of products of a number of Members in any 
future renegotiation process within the WTO.  The systemic implications of this issue therefore 
touched on all Members, while setting an undesirabl e precedent for future tariff negotiations within 
the WTO.  With this in mind, she asked that th e General Council assess this situation from a broader 
perspective rather than one necessarily confined to this particular dispute.  Her delegation welcomed 
the consultations conducted by the Chairman on th is issue which continued the mediatory effort 
started by his predecessor.  Guatemala understood the objective of the cons ultations conducted since  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 23 
 
 
  December 2004 to be as follows:  (i)  to clarify th e specific issues raised by Honduras and Guatemala, 
and  (ii)  to find a solution to this dispute.  W ith regard to the first of these objectives, namely 
clarification of the specific issues raised by H onduras and Guatemala, her delegation considered that 
the issue had already been suffici ently documented and reasoned.  Guatemala and Honduras had been 
providing the legal basis for their arguments sin ce December 2004, and although her delegation had 
no objection to restating these points it considered that  this phase had been exhausted.  As regards the 
second objective, i.e., finding a solution to this disput e, the answer was clear.  No solution had been 
found, and more worrying still was the fact that ther e were no signs of a solution being reached in the 
near future.  The EC held firm to its position, argui ng that there could be no ad hoc solution to this 
matter.  She wished to make clear that her delega tion was not seeking an ad hoc solution.  Guatemala 
wished that the EC, as one of the key Members of the WTO, recognize its negotiating rights – rights 
that were enshrined in the WTO rules.  Thus, like the EC, Guatemala was not seeking an ad hoc 
solution.  Guatemala sought instead a solution that  was in keeping with multilateral criteria.  The 
majority of Members supported and advocated a mu ltilateral solution, and a true multilateral solution 
could only be achieved to the extent that it was in line with, and in the spirit of, the WTO legal rules. 
62. Article XXVIII was quite clear on the matter:  Me mbers other than those which satisfied the 
10 per cent criterion were permitted to be included in tariff renegotiations.  Insofar as such flexibility 
was accommodated and the Understanding on th e Interpretation of Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 
contained phrases intended to protect and secure a re distribution of negotiating rights in favour of 
small and medium-sized exporting Members, Guat emala found no reasonable argument that would 
prevent the EC from recognizing its renegotiating rights.  More importantly, Guatemala failed to 
understand how multilateral criteria coul d be interpreted as ad hoc solu tions.  At the February Council 
meeting, Guatemala had appealed to the EC to address this issue this year with a positive and 
constructive attitude.  To date, however, there ha d been no favourable reply from the EC.  She 
recalled that negotiations were c onducted on a daily basis in the WTO, and that Members addressed 
issues with commitment and in good faith, in the hope of achieving concrete results at the end of the 
day.  Negotiations required par ties to have reasonable positions  and to show commitment and 
flexibility.  The negotiations under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII were no exception.  On many 
occasions, even negotiating rights themselves formed th e subject of negotiations.  It was unclear why 
the EC persisted in applying a mechanical form ula and avoided adopting a constructive and positive 
attitude in this matter.  The question – the only quest ion – to which there was no answer in this entire 
discussion was therefore whether th e EC was willing to negotiate this issue with Honduras and 
Guatemala and thus to undertake to review and adapt the criteria it a pplied to tariff renegotiations.  If 
this were to be the case, the benefits would exte nd to all Members and all would very probably be 
able to mitigate any disputes that might ar ise with the next enlargement of the EC. 
63. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire  thanked the previous speakers for their statements on a 
matter that was of concern to him as well as to many other ACP countries.  The legal arguments 
espoused by the MFN producers on this subject were ve ry pertinent but were in fact yet another spur 
in a debate that had gone on for a long while now.   This issue had been the subject of many 
consultations, of two arbitration procedures, as well as of two revisions to the EC's proposed customs 
tariff which had led all to the current tariff on bana nas of 176 euros per tonne.  He did not wish to 
deny any of the rights that were accorded in the framework of these multilateral discussions to the 
Latin American countries.  However, he wished to  recall in this connection the principle of the 
communicating vases system in physics where the leve l of water poured in naturally reaches the same 
level no matter the size of the communicating recipients.  All was interconnected, and what the Latin American countries were asking for from the EC would come from his pocket and from the sweat of the brow of farmers in the ACP countries.  The st rategy of the Latin American countries, which had 
consisted throughout of a refusal to listen to least -developed countries who formed part of the South-
South trading region among whom various internati onal fora wished to see greater cooperation, 
seemed to him extremely dangerous and he wished th erefore to assuage everyone.  The consultations 
that had been held under Article XXVIII prior to the implementation of the tariff of 176 euros had WT/GC/M/102 
Page 24  
 
  been on nothing other than a juridical basis.  One had to come down to earth  and recognize the refusal 
of the Latin American countries to discuss these matte rs with ACP countries.  This had been the case 
since the beginning of the process in 2005 when the ACP countries had been associated with the 
negotiations by the EC and they had had a sort of triangular discussion in which the Latin American countries addressed themselves to the EC who then handed the floor to the ACP.  When the ACP 
countries had tried in those discussions to indicate the exceptional circumstances which had motivated 
the Doha waiver, they had received no response, and this situation continued to the present day.   
64. The purpose of his intervention at this stage wa s to stretch out his hand towards his brothers 
in Latin America so that they could establish a dialogue with the ACP countries going over and beyond the question of rights.  He recalled in this  connection that the participation of ACP countries 
had been categorically refused in the process fo llowing the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference that 
was being facilitated by Norway's Foreign Minister .  The ACP countries were not allowed even to 
participate in the monitoring mechanism where no r eal substantive discussion was undertaken.  It was 
his hope at the present stage that the Latin Amer ican countries, with whom the ACP countries had 
many interests in common to defend in the WTO,  particularly as regards tropical products among 
others, would hear his call and establish a dialogue t ogether so that they could all better understand 
the weaknesses on all sides.  As regards the circum stances which had led the EC to take the steps it 
had – which were in the nature of emergency me asures of a humanitarian nature – these had not 
changed.  On the contrary, he would say that they had deteriorated even further in the ACP countries.  
As far as Côte d'Ivoire was concerned, he recal led that the country was going through a tremendous 
crisis since 2002 which had led it to become even  more backward than before in terms of 
industrialization and development.  AIDS, the recent bird flu and various other diseases had all been a 
harrowing experience for the country.  So the circ umstances had not changed, and all had to get 
together and engage in a discussion.  This did not  in any way put into question or challenge the 
different arguments which had been put forwar d amongst others by the EC in defending their 
interests, but this was a call he made to his Latin American brothers so that  they could engage in a 
detailed debate to see what it would cost if the EC were to accede to their demands.  At a time when 
all were negotiating preferences both in agriculture  as well as in NAMA, it was time for the ACP and 
Latin American countries to also engage, possibly no t in the framework of this particular forum but 
rather in bilateral consultations.  He reserved his delegation's right to respond to other concerns that 
might arise at a later stage. 
65. The representative of Costa Rica
 thanked the Chair for the latte r's report on the consultations 
in which his delegation had participated.  Costa Ri ca wished to reiterate its support for the requests 
and the concerns expressed by Honduras and Guatem ala, and believed that their rights should be 
recognized.  For the purposes of transparency, he wi shed to state that Costa Rica was one of the 
Members whose rights had been recognized by the EC.  However, until the present, Costa Rica and 
the EC had not yet reached agreement on compensation with regard to various products that had been 
affected by the EC's recent enlargement.  While he had not had even the slightest intention of 
referring to bananas in his statement, he noted that Côte d'Ivoire had indeed referred to it.  This was 
something that was being discussed in other bodies and was related to the matter under discussion under this Agenda item.  Costa Rica believed that  the Doha Round was indeed the most appropriate 
place to find a solution and, as he stated on earlie r occasions, it was perfectly willing to sit down and 
meet with the ACP countries whenever they so wi shed.  However, Costa Rica believed there were 
other very important actors involved in the discuss ion who should also be present and should also 
help to find a solution, namely the EC.  It was sad  that this should be a subject of division between 
developing countries.  He had just been looking at  an outline that a developed-country delegation had 
made regarding the position of de veloping countries in the NAMA negotiations and the various layers 
of flexibility that had been requested.  He noted th at there were countries that were being protected by 
means of four or five different levels of flexibilit y so as to not have to contribute in any way to the 
Doha negotiations, while Costa Rica was left out of the scope of these flexibiliti es.  This was the real 
discussion, namely, who was willing to make a cont ribution to the Round and who was not, and not  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 25 
 
 
  just one single particular product.  He would simp ly echo what the Director-General had stated under 
the item on the TNC's report, namely that it was urgent  that in the next few weeks there be movement.  
All must urgently understand that they needed to move  as quickly as possible.  But this was not a race 
against the clock.  It was instead a race where the only way for it to end successfully was if all 
collectively reached the finish line in agreement.  He wished therefore to call on the delegations who 
had until the present not shown any flexibility, who had not understood that in a Round negotiated as 
a single undertaking the only way to move forward was for there to be trade-offs and give-and-take, to 
recognize that this was the only way for there to be a successful Round. 
66. The representative of Panama  thanked the Chair for the latter' s consultations on this matter in 
which his delegation participated.  Panama supported the concerns voiced by Honduras and 
Guatemala on this issue, and had not yet seen any sign of a solution.  For its part, Panama had a 
substantial supplying interest in bananas in conn ection with the enlargement of the EC and its 
rebinding of its banana tariff as from 1 January 2006, and its rights had been recognized by the EC in 
both contexts.  Although Panama was owed substantia l compensation, in the case of the enlargement 
negotiations even though the EC had originally in dicated that Panama was entitled to significant 
compensation it was now asserting that Panama did not ha ve any such right.  Furthermore, in the case 
of the new binding, the EC was insisting that Pana ma was not entitled to compensation.  The EC had 
neither provided any methodology which would support its stated position, nor indicated when and at 
what level the banana tariff would be bound.  Given the vitally important nature of this sector to 
Panama's developing economy, Panama had to defe nd its rights regarding the compensation it was 
due, and before the relevant timefr ames expired.  Panama once again appealed to the EC to negotiate 
the compensatory adjustments that were required in  order to avoid the presen tation of further appeals 
in this area. 
67. The representative of Paraguay  stated his delegation's support for Honduras and Guatemala.  
These were countries with small, vulnerable econom ies being subject to unfair discrimination and 
Paraguay could not accept such discrimination in the WTO.  It hoped that the just request by 
Honduras and Guatemala would soon be resolved with in the multilateral framework, and would serve 
as an example that solutions to disputes in the WT O could be found among all parties whatever their 
size. 
68. The representative of Ecuador  thanked the Chair for the latter' s report.  Ecuador supported the 
position of Honduras and Guatemala, and urged the EC  to provide a solution to this problem under 
Articles XXIV and XXVIII of the GATT 1994.  Ecuador recommended that Honduras' and 
Guatemala's rights be recognized.  This was impo rtant given that they were small developing 
countries whose economies depended to a great extent on the exports of this particular product.  
Furthermore, Ecuador believed this would be a positive step given that the EC was still lagging behind on the overall issue of this particular product. 
69. The representative of Brazil
 stressed his delegation's c ontinued support for Honduras' and 
Guatemala's efforts on this matter.  He also wished to take this opportunity to stress a point raised by 
Honduras and Guatemala, namely that although there were several dimensions and aspects to the issue 
of the price of bananas in the EC, this was r eally not the matter under discussion in the General 
Council.  If one were to find a solution to the issue raised in the General Council, there would indeed 
be a reduction in the pressure or the size of the problem that the Central American countries faced 
when bananas were being discussed in other fora in  the WTO.  The most obvious and straightforward 
solution would of course be recognition of Honduras' and Guatemala's rights, taking into account their 
market share in a representative period of time not s ubject to any artificial restrictions.  The solution 
would be to find alternatives, to find outlets or compensation which would make it possible for these 
two countries to diversify their exports towards the European market and it would then become easier 
to find a solution which would also take into cons ideration the very legitimate concerns of the ACP 
countries, i.e. those that also exported the products , and in particular bananas, which the central WT/GC/M/102 
Page 26  
 
  American countries also exported.  He reiterate d Brazil's support for Honduras and Guatemala, and 
hoped that a solution could be found as soon as possible. 
70. The representative of Nicaragua
 thanked the Chair for the latter's consultations, and expressed 
support for the request by Honduras and Guatemala for recognition of their legitimate rights to negotiate on bananas under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of GATT 1994.  On several earlier 
occasions Nicaragua had stated that this was a matt er which should be dealt with from the point of 
view of the specific interests of the exporting count ries and the systemic nature of this matter and the 
effect it could have on the general rules of this  organization.  As small countries their special 
conditions must be recognized.  He r delegation urged the EC to show greater flexibility and to find a 
prompt solution to this matter. 
71. The representative of Burkina Faso
 said that in view of the considerable difficulties that the 
ACP countries were facing, he wished to voice his support for the statement by Côte d'Ivoire and requested that the matter concerning bananas receive  the highest attention from Members.  Burkina 
Faso believed that a solution in the light of the preferences granted by the Community would greatly 
assist those countries which were facing major difficulties as was stated by Côte d'Ivoire. 
72. The representative of El Salvador
 said that, as on previous occasions, her delegation wished 
to indicate its interest in finding a prompt solution to the concerns raised by Honduras and Guatemala under this agenda item.  She thanked the Chair for th e latter's efforts and supported them with a view 
to finding a satisfactory solution to this problem. 
73. The representative of the European Communities
 thanked the Chair for the latter's 
consultations and the extensive a nd detailed report on them.  With regard to the points raised by 
Honduras, he said that the EC had examined Honduras'  justifications for its  claim of substantial 
supplying interest as communicated in May and December 2005 (WT/GC/90 and Corr.1, and 
WT/MIN(05)/9), and that these had not caused the EC  to change its conclusions.  Honduras' position 
was that pursuant to Note 7 to Article XXVIII: 1 of GATT 1994 it should be recognized as having a 
substantive supplying interest on the basis that it could reasonably have been expected to have a 
significant share in the EC market in the absence of discriminatory quantitative restrictions affecting 
its exports.  However, the EC had always stat ed in response that Honduras' communications had 
failed to substantiate its claims since they had not shown that Honduras would have had a significant 
share of the market, and had not proven any li nk between its decreased share and the EC import 
regime.  There were in fact a number of changes th at had taken place in import shares, with those of 
some MFN suppliers having gone up and those of  others having gone down.  Honduras had in 
addition argued that WTO rules and practice – not ably paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the 
Interpretation of Article XXVIII and the supposed 10 pe r cent rule – had to be interpreted in the light 
of small and vulnerable countries in the WTO contex t.  The EC had always argued that it could not 
deviate from rules agreed by the membership in relation to Article  XXVIII negotiations without a new 
agreement by the membership.  It was in this cont ext that the EC had repeatedly said that it was 
always open to a solution that would be applied by  all.  If the EC took the route suggested by 
Paraguay and simply unilaterally and in an ad  hoc way accepted a solution only for Honduras and 
Guatemala, it would create discrimination.  This  was one of the reasons why the EC wished to 
maintain the rules.   
74. Providing an example, he said that Guatemala' s share of EC banana imports in the period 
2000-2002 amounted to 0.5 per cent.  It was difficult to get anywhere close to 10 per cent with that 
figure, which was so well below the threshold for ha ving a substantial interest that one would really 
need to provide another rule in order to recogni ze Guatemala's rights.  Th at was exactly the same 
problem with Nicaragua too.  It was therefore really  a question of trying to make a rule that would 
apply to everyone.  With regard to the points raised  by Guatemala, the EC had always remained ready 
to discuss with Guatemala all of the products of interest to the latter.  The EC had had a private  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 27 
 
 
  discussion with Guatemala on a full set of products , and had sent it detailed information explaining 
exactly the market shares concerned and why the EC  had arrived at its conclusions.  The EC had not 
received any feedback on that particular discussion, and had assumed that that had been okay.  Having 
heard Guatemala's statement at the present meeting,  he reiterated that the EC remained open to 
bilateral discussions with either Guatemala, Hondur as or any other party which felt it had grievances 
with regard to the XXIV:6 negotiations.  Before conc luding, he wished to say that he had noted the 
statements from both Côte d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso .  While he would not reply to all that they had 
said, some of which seemed to go beyond th e scope of the present discussion on rights under 
Articles XXIV and XXVIII, he wished to say that in the movement from a TRQ system which had 
existed last year and before to a tariff-only regime  from 1 January 2006, the EC  had sought – and had 
repeatedly stated so – to move in neutrality.  In other words, the EC had sought to ensure that the 
market access for MFN suppliers and the preferentia l access of ACP suppliers would be maintained.  
There was nothing in the data to date to suggest that the EC had been wrong.  However, the EC was 
always ready to re-examine that.  There were more  studies on this particular question than one could 
imagine, in which proposed figures for an EC wide tariff ranged from as low as zero to well over 
250 euros per tonne.  So it was quite clear that studi es could produce all kinds of figures.  The EC was 
now in the situation of examining the real facts behind what its current tariff of 176 euros per tonne would do and, as he had just stated, thus far it ha d not had cause for concern.  He agreed with Costa 
Rica that in fact the Doha Round could help in the resolution to this problem.  Having said that, the EC stood ready to continue to discuss this in the course of the Chair's consultations, or on a one-on-one basis with other suppliers, in orde r to find a mutually acceptable solution. 
75. The representative of Colombia
 said she had requested the floor to extend an invitation to the 
Chair and to the Director-General to sit down togeth er in a few days' time in any forum they deemed 
appropriate – whether an informal General Council or informal TNC session – to talk about bananas 
because what she had just heard from the EC indicat ed a profound confusion as to what the problem 
was.  The issue on the agenda of the current mee ting related to the enlargement of the European 
Communities.  That was one issue.  The other issue related to the new EC import regime for bananas 
consisting of a tariff of 176 euros per tonne and a 775,000 tonne quota for the ACP countries.  The 
third issue was the Doha Round, and Colombia believ ed that the Round had to work and wanted to 
see results.  The issue of bananas could not contin ue to be emblematic of the excuses for the non-
working of the Round.  If one were to make a ta ble – which she had done and would send on to the 
EC and to the Chair and the Director-General – one would see that there were three distinct problems.  
The only common denominator among these was the pr oduct, but each and every one had a distinct 
area for resolution – one was the enlargement nego tiations, another was the single tariff and the 
discussions under the good offices process with Norway  and other countries, a third aspect concerned 
the dispute settlement process that had been undertak en by some countries under Article 21.5 of the 
DSU, and finally there was the Round.  Her interv ention at the present meeting was therefore not to 
address the agenda item as such but rather to request that Members take a look at this huge confusion.  
The various issues involved were not all the same. 
76. The Chairman  said he would revert to Colombia's  suggestion after having heard other 
speakers on this item. 
77. The representative of Costa Rica  said he wished to clarify that when he had said that the 
Round could help to solve the banana problem, he wa s not referring to any original proposal.  Costa 
Rica did not come under any of the "layers of flexib ility" that one saw frequently.  All Costa Rica was 
asking for was that market access disciplines be tr ansparent also for bananas.  All had seen the 
simulations that had been undertaken in a number of  areas.  These had been a very valuable exercise 
because all needed to know what the results would be  of the proposals that were on the table.  In 
agriculture, each Member was requesting their econom ists in capital to run the numbers and do 
simulations on each and every one of the proposals that  had been tabled.  Costa Rica had done this 
with the numbers from the US proposal, it had done th is in regard to the G20 proposal and had also WT/GC/M/102 
Page 28  
 
  done this for the EC proposal.  However, there wa s one product – which also was the most important 
agricultural export product for Costa Rica – in respec t of which Costa Rica had not been able to do 
any simulation, namely bananas.  It was just as well that no agreement had been reached on modalities 
on 30 April, for even though Costa Rica was strongly supportive of the Round it would not have been able to agree to any modalities because it would not have known what the numbers would be in 
respect of bananas.  The reason why Costa Rica couldn't run the numbers on bananas was – even 
though delegations might not believe it – that the EC did not currently have a bound tariff for bananas. 
78. He recalled that the EC had unbound its previ ous regime and had unde rtaken Article XXVIII 
negotiations prior to the date of entry into force of the new EC tariff-only regime on 1 January 2006.  
It had then subsequently informed the interested pa rties that the rebinding of the EC tariff on bananas 
would be at the level of 230 euros per tonne.  Unde r the Annex to the Doha waiver Decision on the 
ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, the interested parties in this matter had requested arbitration, and in 
the first arbitral award the arbitrators had stated that 230 euros per tonne would not result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana s uppliers, which was the requirement that had been 
set.  The EC had been given an opportunity to rectif y the situation, and it had then proposed a tariff of 
187 euros per tonne.  A second arbitration proceeding th en once again said that that market access for 
MFN suppliers would not be maintained at that leve l either.  The EC had then unilaterally established 
a new number – 176 euros – which had been implemented as of 1 January 2006.  To everyone's surprise, the EC had announced that this figure of  176 euros was not going to be bound.  The reason 
was simply that the EC had changed the conditions unilaterally.  It had not bound the new rate, and 
had announced that the only way to know how th e market would react would be to establish a 
monitoring mechanism which would require at least a representative period of one year to judge 
market reaction.  All knew that a certain period of time was necessary to judge the reaction of the 
market, and the EC had decided that this should be one year.  However, well before that year was out 
Members would, in 2006, have to conclude the D oha Round.  They had to establish modalities for the 
agriculture and NAMA negotiations in the next few weeks, as the Director-General had stated under 
Agenda Item 1.  However, if the EC was not goi ng to bind its tariff on bananas until a year had 
elapsed, how could one expect countries such as his own, whose major export product was bananas, to 
agree to modalities on agriculture at the present time?  He wondered if agricultural exporters such as 
Australia, the United States or others would be able to accept modalities without knowing the figure 
for the formula regarding their major export produc ts.  Would Brazil or New Zealand, for example, 
accept modalities without knowing the outcomes for meat or dairy products, respectively?  Would 
anyone be so irresponsible so as to accept modalitie s without knowing the outcomes for their principal 
export products?  He believed no one would be able to do so.  This was why all were facing a very 
serious situation, given the EC's insistence that it would not bind its banana tariff until a year had 
gone by and the fact that all were aiming to ad opt modalities in the coming few weeks.  Costa Rica 
would not be able to adopt modalities without know ing how the formula would apply to its largest 
export product. 
79. The representative of Guatemala
 said she wished to thank all the delegations who had spoken 
for their support.  In response to the EC's statemen t that Guatemala's share of EC banana imports in 
the period 2000-2002 had amounted to 0.5 per cent, sh e said that not having any data at hand she was 
unable to substantiate that figure.  However, as suming the figure was correct, one could not fail to 
recognize that this was a minor trade share.  Bu t the question under this item on the Council's Agenda 
was what would Guatemala's share of the EC mark et have been had there not been any quantitative 
restrictions in the European import regime.  The EC, since 1993, had had a very restrictive import 
regime in place.  There could be no doubt at all th at if that regime had not been in place Guatemala 
would have qualified as a Member with a substantial supplying interest with a share of 10 per cent of 
the EC market, if not as a major supplier.  Guatem ala was amongst the five major banana exporters at 
the world level.  Its production was efficient, and the product of the independent efforts of 
Guatemalans themselves.  For these reasons, Guatemala was neither seeking exceptional nor  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 29 
 
 
  preferential treatment, nor any form of benevolence, but rather fair and just treatment that was in 
keeping with WTO rules.  Guatemala w as only looking for fair market access. 
80. The representative of Benin  said he wished to underline the importance and the urgency of 
finding a solution to this issue, and of engaging  in a transparent process that would enable the 
interests of the ACP countries to be safeguarded.  In this connection, he wished to support the 
statement by Côte d'Ivoire and hoped that in a short period of time all would arri ve at concrete results 
that would take fully into account the interests of  the ACP countries given that this was a product of 
crucial importance to them. 
81. The representative of Honduras  said she wished to recall, as her delegation had in 
paragraph 12 of its communication in WT/MIN(05) /9 regarding its substa ntial supplying interest 
claim in relation to bananas, that the Banana III  panel (WT/DS27/R) had explicitly  found that a 
substantial-supplier share need not reach 10 per cen t, especially if the exporting Member was a small 
developing country that heavily relie d on exports of the product at issue.  This point could be found in 
paragraphs 7.83 and 7.84 of that pa nel report.  The panel had specifi cally pointed out that substantial 
interest might well vary somewhat based on the structure of the market. 
82. The representative of Jamaica  said that the banana industry was one of the most important 
sectors in some ACP economies, and certainly the most important in some members of his own region, namely CARICOM.  The importance of this sector in terms of empl oyment and income could 
not be overemphasized.  In fact, the banana industry pl ayed an important role in the very survival of a 
number of economies in his region, particularly as regards the fight against poverty and social 
dislocation.  Countries in his region were also aware of the importance of this sector to a number of 
other developing countries.  They wished to see pred ictability, stability and equity in the industry.  
Foremost, in that regard, Jamaica wished to emphasi ze that it was vitally important that the interests 
of all parties be taken into account on this issue. 
83. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire
 said he wished to thank a ll delegations who had supported 
his proposal, beginning with Colombia, and to give support to the latter's request to the 
Director-General which would invo lve all working together in a very open manner and on a tripartite 
basis to address the questions she had raised. 
84. The representative of the European Communities  said that he had heard very clearly the point 
made by Honduras with regard to the Banana III panel report as cited in paragraph 12 of 
WT/MIN(05)/9, as well as Guatemala's concerns about  market shares in the absence of restrictions.  
However, from the sort of numbers one was dea ling with, which were a long way from 10 per cent, 
the problem was how far did one stretch it?  That w as the real question.  One could understand if the 
figures were 9.5 per cent or 8 per cent or somethi ng close, but if one had other MFN suppliers taking 
up the market one had to draw the line somewhere.   Otherwise, one ended up creating a precedent 
within the organization which presumably was either  followed by others or ended up being exactly 
what Guatemala had itself said it did not want to see, i.e., an ad hoc solution.  The EC was trying to 
avoid an ad hoc solution.  He was also very c onscious of the comments by Jamaica regarding the 
importance of bananas not only to ACP countries but also to a large number of other suppliers, and 
this was one of the reasons why the EC itself w as keen on seeing a quick and equitable solution that 
was balanced and took account of all the interests around the table.  As regards the paper mentioned 
by Colombia, he had seen it, and although admittedly somewhat confused by it would study it further.  
As regards the comments by Costa Rica, he had hear d the latter's message loud and clear.  He wished 
to clarify that the EC had not unbound its previous tariff.  The situation was that the EC had a bound 
rate of 680 euros per tonne and was applying 176.  That  was the current state of affairs.  The EC was 
applying 176 euros per tonne, and believed that that  was equivalent to the regime that had existed 
before.  That was why the EC had gone through this exercise, and time would show whether or not it 
was right.  What was clear, however, was that quite  a number of MFN suppliers were convinced that WT/GC/M/102 
Page 30  
 
  that figure was way too high while quite a number of ACP suppliers considered it way too low.  Time 
would tell. 
85. The Director-General
 said he wished to respond to Colombia's suggestion that the Chair and 
possibly the Director-General consider convening a meeting among interested parties on the banana 
issue.  In this connection, and amplifying on Colombia 's statement, he noted that this issue was being 
dealt with in six different fora in the WTO as follows :  (i) in the General Council with regard to the 
claims by Honduras and Guatemala under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of GATT 1994, to which one 
could add Colombia's various signals that it might retaliate under Article XXVIII for lack of adequate 
compensation;  (ii) in the Goods Council with rega rd to the EC waiver request under Article XIII of 
GATT 1994 for the tariff rate quota for bananas of ACP origin;  (iii) in the DSB, at the request of 
Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, with regard to the monitoring under DSU Article 21.6 of the EC 
implementation of its obligations arising from the Bananas III case;  (iv) in consultations, at the 
request of Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, pursuan t to DSU Article 21.5;  (v) in the good offices 
process being conducted by Norway;  and (vi) in the agriculture negotiations on a variety of issues 
such as consolidation, sensitive products, tropical pr oducts and preference erosion.  The question of 
whether the discussion in these six different fora woul d be helped by one general consultation needed 
a little reflection, and without wishing to prejudge the Council Chair's response he for his part would 
not give an answer on the spot to this suggestion.  He urged all to consider further whether it would be 
helpful to bring all these various avenues into one .  There might be both pros and cons, and it was 
therefore worth thinking further about it. 
86. The representative of Costa Rica  said that, as others had recalled, the banana issue was under 
discussion in different bodies in different areas, eac h under its own merits.  He believed that one 
should not mix things, and that it was probably best to tackle each of these issues in their own way 
and under their own rules.  Each deserved a separate  solution.  As regards the EC's comment that its 
bound tariff remained at 680 euros per tonne, he wi shed to recall that the EC had announced the 
unbinding of that tariff.  That tariff had been  unbound because in 2001 when the waiver concerning 
the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement had been a pproved at Doha (WT/L/436), it had been approved 
under the condition that the EC was going to convert its TRQ regime into a tariff-only regime.  That 
TRQ regime, as other TRQ regimes, had two tiers.  The first tier had a tariff of 75 euros per tonne, 
and the second a tariff of 680.  That was the old regime.  In keeping with the terms of the Doha waiver Decision, that regime was to be converted into a tariff-only regime, and that was the exercise 
the EC had undertaken in 2005.  According to the EC 's calculation, conversion to a tariff-only regime 
had resulted in the initially proposed figure of 230 euros per tonne.  That figure was the result of 
converting the 680 euros per tonne of the second tier, th e 75 euros per tonne of the first tier plus the 
licenses that were used to administrate that regime into a tariff-only regime.  That figure, as well as a subsequent one of 187, had both been rejected by arbitrators, following which the EC had proposed the current tariff-only figure of 176.  That being so, it was very strange to hear now that when 
converting the TRQ into a tariff-only figure of 176,  there was still the second tier tariff existing.  This 
was nonsensical.  The EC had converted its earlier regime to a tariff-only regime at 176 euros per 
tonne, and Costa Rica fully expected it to be bound at  that level as from 1 January 2006.  That was the 
commitment undertaken at Doha – the Annex to th e Doha waiver Decision clearly referred to the 
"rebinding" of the EC tariff on bananas, and did not  speak about an "applied" tariff.  Therefore, the 
176 euros per tonne was supposed to be bound since 1 January.  The EC was now using a very tricky 
argument, which was all the more surprising because in bilateral discussions that Costa Rica had had 
with the EC it had received assurances that the EC was never going to argue that 680 euros per tonne 
was still the bound tariff.  So, changing the situatio n and coming now to say that that would be the 
point of departure for the application of a formula would really get everyone into a very difficult situation.  He really requested the EC to be cons tructive at this stage because what one needed now 
was not to break the trust but rather to create trust.  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 31 
 
 
  87. The Chairman  said he was certain this would not be the last time that Members would be 
discussing the issue of bananas in this forum.  In re sponse to Colombia, he said that having listened to 
this debate all would agree that the banana issu e was very a multi-faceted one with various aspects 
which were, as the Director-General had noted, being discussed in a number of fora in the WTO.  He 
would follow the suggestion by th e Director-General that all reflect on how to pursue this most 
effectively.  He would, for his part, be inclined  to follow the path that Members had pursued until 
then.  He proposed that the General Council revert to  this matter at its next meeting, and that he 
continue his consultations in the meantime w ith the aim of moving this issue forward. 
88. The General Council took note  of the statements and so agreed . 
6. Derestriction of Official  GATT 1947 Documents – Draft decision – Communication 
from the Chairman of the General Council (WT/GC/W/562) 
89. The Chairman  recalled that, with a view to facilita ting an early decision by Members in 
regard to the derestriction of the GATT documents th at were still restricted, Members had agreed at 
the February meeting of the General Council to proceed as follows: 
 - First, that all Members who wished to  do so should be allowed until 31 March to 
examine the restricted GATT documents and to notify the Secretariat of any documents which 
they considered should continue to remain restricted for a further period of time;   
  - Second, that open-ended informal consultati ons should subsequently be held in April 
to consider a draft decision that would propose th e general derestriction in the near future of 
all restricted GATT documents, as well as the automatic derestriction at a later date of those 
documents notified by delegations as wa rranting further restriction;  and  
  - Third, that, on the basis of these cons ultations, Members would take up the draft 
decision for consideration and action at  the present General Council meeting. 
 
 As a follow-up to this procedure, he had info rmed Members in a communication circulated on 
5 May (document WT/GC/W/562) that no Member had notified the Secretariat by the deadline of 31 March of any documents which they considered s hould continue to remain restricted for a further 
period of time.  He had informed Members that, in  keeping with the procedure agreed in February, 
open-ended informal consultations had been subsequently convened by  Mr. Harbinson on 19 April to 
consider a draft derestriction decision which had been  circulated to all delegations together with the 
convening notice for the consultations.  The purpose of these open-ended cons ultations had been to 
ensure that all views could be taken into acc ount before any such d ecision was submitted for 
consideration and action to the present Council meeti ng.  At these consultations, no reservations had 
been expressed on the draft decision, and the proposed  date of 1 June 2006 for the derestriction of all 
GATT 1947 documents had been agreeable to all delegati ons that had participated.  On this basis, and 
in pursuance of the procedure agreed in February , he had circulated for the information of all 
Members, as an Annex to his communication of 5 May, a draft decision for the derestriction of 
official GATT documents, and had indicated that it would be taken up for consideration and action at 
the present meeting.  He then drew attention to th e draft decision contained in Annex B of document 
WT/GC/W/562 and invited the General Council to adopt it.  
90. The General Council took note
 of the statement and so agreed . 2 
                                                      
2 The Decision was subsequen tly circulated as WT/L/647. WT/GC/M/102 
Page 32  
 
  7. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration 
(a) Report of the Committee on its meeting of February 2006 (WT/BFA/85/Rev.1) 
91. The Chairman
 drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee in document 
WT/BFA/85/Rev.1.   
92. Mr. March (Spain), Chairman of Committe e on Budget, Finance and Administration , 
introducing the report, recalled that the relevant  recommendation from the February 2006 meeting of 
the Budget Committee had already been presented a nd approved at the General Council meeting in 
February.  The narrative report in document WT/BFA /85/Rev.1 was therefore presented solely for the 
information of the General Council.  The Committee had examined (i) various administrative up-dates 
and progress reports, including those related to the cash situation, statement of outstanding 
contributions, both from Members and Observers, and Human Resources;  (ii) the status of extra-
budgetary activities;  (iii) an oral report on the New WTO Annexe and the Security Enhancement 
Programme;  (iv) inactive Members; and (v) a report on WTO Programmes for Trainees. 
93. The General Council took note  of the statement and adopted  the Budget Committee's report in 
document WT/BFA/85/Rev.1. 
(b) Report of the Committee on its meeting of March 2006 (WT/BFA/86) 
94. The Chairman  drew attention to the report of the Budget Committee in document 
WT/BFA/86. 
95. Mr. March (Spain), Chairman of Commit tee on Budget, Finance and Administration , said that 
the agenda for the Committee's meeting had include d (i) various administrative up-dates and progress 
reports;  (ii) the status of extra-budgetary activiti es;  (iii) an oral report on the New WTO Annexe;  
and (iv) the revision of the Administrative Measures.   With regard to Trust Funds, Members had been 
urged to make pledges of some Sw F 15 million in order meet the target figure for the Technical 
Assistance Training Plan and to enable its full implem entation.  With respect to the revision of the 
Administrative Measures, the Committee had discussed this question over the course of several meetings in 2005 as well as in 2006.  The Comm ittee had reviewed the Administrative Measures 
currently in effect in the WTO, and had noted that  there continued to be a persistent problem of 
accumulation of arrears, which ha d implications for all Members in the annual final accounts of the 
organization.  The Committee had recalled (i) that in accordance with Article VII:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO, Members had the oblig ation to continue to c ontribute promptly to the 
WTO their share in the expenses of the WTO;  (ii) th at in an effort to ensure that the assessment of 
contributions was based more closely on Members' share in trade, and to ease the financial burden on 
Members with lower trade shares, particularly for Least-Deve loped Country Members, the minimum 
contribution in the GATT and subsequently in the WTO had been reduced from 0.12 per cent to 0.03 per 
cent in 1988 and from 0.03 per cent to 0.015 per cent in 1999;   (iii) that a scheme existed to facilitate the 
payment of pre-1988 arrears (when the minimum c ontribution had been fixed at 0.12 per cent) on 
favourable terms for Members whic h were assessed at the minimum in 1988;  and (iv) that the 
Administrative Measures were not applied to pre-1988 arrears.  The Committee ther efore recommended 
that the General Council approve the Revised Admi nistrative Measures contai ned in paragraph 14 of 
document WT/BFA/86.  This recommendation s hould be viewed in conjunction with the 
recommendation in the following paragraph, which was at least of equal importance to the Revised Administrative Measures.  It rec ognized that a Member with long outs tanding arrears might not be in a 
position to regularize its situation im mediately.  It would, therefore,  authorize the Committee on Budget, 
Finance and Administration to suspend the applicat ion of administrative m easures for Members in 
Category IV which agreed to, and abided by, a de fined schedule of instal ment payments aimed at  WT/GC/M/102 
 Page 33 
 
 
  liquidating all arrears.  He believed that this measure introduced sufficient  flexibility so as to be able to 
enable any country that was included in Category IV to re-establish its situation. 
96. The General Council took note  of the statement, approved  the specific recommendations in 
paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Budget Comm ittee's report in WT/BFA/86, and adopted  the report. 
8. Arrangement governing the transfer of pensio n rights between the WTO Pension Plan 
and the European Communities Pension Scheme (WT/GC/W/561) 
97. The Chairman  recalled that, under Article 10 of the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan, 
the Management Board of the WTO Pension Plan c ould, subject to the concurrence of the General 
Council, approve agreements with  Member Governments and with intergovernmental organizations 
with a view to securing continuity of pension ri ghts for participants in the Pension Plan.  The 
Management Board of the WTO Pension Plan a nd the Secretariat of th e European Communities 
Pension Scheme had recently appr oved an arrangement governing the transfer of pension rights 
between the two schemes.  The arrangement had been submitted in document WT/GC/W/561 for the 
concurrence of the General Council. 
98. Mrs. Demir (Turkey), Chairperson of the Management Board of the WTO Pension Plan , said 
that document WT/GC/W/561 set forth the arrangeme nt governing the transfer of pension rights 
between the WTO Pension Plan (WTOPP) and the European Communities Pension Scheme 
(EC Scheme).  This arrangement, the most recent in a series of transfer agreements concluded between the WTOPP and other pension schemes – not ably those of the United Nations and of the 
Coordinated Organizations – had b een drawn up by the Management Board in consultation with the 
Secretariat of the EC Scheme.  Like the other existing transfer agreements, the arrangement aimed to 
facilitate the movement of staff between differe nt organizations.  Once the General Council had 
expressed its concurrence with this arrangement, the exchange of letters pertaining to the latter would 
be finalized. 
99. The General Council took note
 of the statement and concurred  with the Arrangement 
governing the transfer of pension rights between the WTO Pension Plan and the European 
Communities Pension Scheme contained in document WT/GC/W/561.3 
9. Statement by Paraguay on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries 
100. The representative of Paraguay , on behalf the Informal Group of Developing Countries , 
speaking under "Other Business", said that the Group had  recently had the pleasure of welcoming the 
Director-General to one of its meetings, and wish ed to thank the latter for having met with members 
of the Group during this crucial phase of the negotia tions.  There were three issues that had become 
permanent agenda items in the meetings of the In formal Group and on which he wished to share a few 
thoughts, namely, developmental asp ects of the Doha Round, transparency in the WTO, and accession 
of developing countries.  Regarding the devel opmental aspects of the Doha Round, the Group had 
already met a number of times to discuss its member s' expectations regarding the results of the DDA 
and to examine the progress that had been made in the negotiations on issues of interest to them.  One 
of the most useful tools in this respect had been a paper prepared by the Secretariat entitled 
"Developmental Aspects of the Doha Round of Negotiations", circulated in document WT/COMTD/W/143/Rev.1.  The developing countries joined the Director-General in his appeal, made at the 55
th Session of the Committee on Trade and Development, for all Members to carry out 
an in-depth analysis of this paper and submit th eir comments during subsequent discussions thereof.  
This analysis of the developmental aspects of th e Doha Development Round should be a continuous, 
in-depth process if Members wished to meet the objectives set forth in paragraph 2 of the Doha 
                                                      
3 The text of the Transfer Agreement wa s subsequently circulated as WT/L/650. WT/GC/M/102 
Page 34  
 
  Declaration.  Another issue that had been addressed  by the Informal Group was transparency in the 
WTO.  In the Group's discussions, two facets of this issue had been identified:  first, transparency 
from the systemic point of view, both within and out side the organization;  and second, transparency 
in an ad hoc sense, in relation to specific subjects addressed in the organization.  In both cases, the 
developing countries had agreed that transparency called for a long-term effort on the part of all 
Members.  This was why the Group thought it was impor tant to keep this issue under review in order 
to continue to build on existing practices.  If Me mbers were to make any improvements, they would 
need the determination of all de legations, particularly the develo ped and the developing countries 
represented in Geneva.  During critical phases of th e negotiations, such as the current one, one was 
always tempted to act hastily, and this could be detr imental to transparency.  This was not the way to 
proceed.  If transparency was undermined, so woul d the legitimacy of the agreements reached be 
undermined.  The third issue addressed in th e Informal Group was the accession of developing 
countries.  It was a peculiarity of the Informal Gr oup that it was one of the few fora within the WTO 
in which developing countries that were not WTO Members interacted with Members on an equal footing.  Perhaps this was why the acceding countries  were always more active in the Informal Group 
discussions.  The issue of accessions was crucial, since it was directly related to one of the 
organization's main objectives, namely, to achieve a true multilateral trading system.  The developing 
countries were of the view that the WTO accession pr ocesses should be governed by the principles of 
justice and equity in order to ensure that the count ries currently outside the mu ltilateral trading system 
could integrate in such as way as to favour the gr owth of their economies, to the benefit of all 
Members.  The Group was also aware that accessi on processes required a high degree of commitment 
by the countries seeking to enter the WTO, and it ur ged those countries to work closely with Members 
and with the Secretariat to bring their accession processes to a successful conclusion as rapidly as 
possible.  Finally, he wished to assure all that the Informal Group would continue working to ensure 
that the WTO became the leading instrument of mu ltilateralism, in which a ll developing countries had 
faith as the means to achieving progress for their peoples. 
101. The General Council took note
 of the statement. 
__________