RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/70
10 January 2002
(02-0116)
General Council
Special Session on Implementation
3 October and  1 November 2001
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 3 October and  1 November 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Stuart Harbinson (Hong Kong, China)
Subjects discussed1:
1. Report by the General Council Chairm an and the Director-General on their
consultations on the outstanding implem entation-related issues and concerns;
and
2. Consideration of decisions for appropriate action where possible and in
accordance with the Decision of 3 May 2000
The Chairman reported that consultations had taken place on the basis of the draft Decision in
Job(01)/1392 of 26 September 2001, but that the General Council was not in a position to take any
formal action with respect to this document at the present meeting.  He proposed that Members
continue to work in further informal consultations on the basis of this document, both among
themselves and with the continued close cooperation of the Director-General and Deputy Director-General Mr. Rodriguez-Mendoza.  He proposed that in the light of the current situation, the meeting
adjourn, so that Members could continue to work substantively on these issues in an informal mode
and reconvene at the first possible opportunity in order to take action.  He suggested that in order to
make the best use of the time available, and given that it might be premature to go immediately into
further informal consultations, the General Council reconvene shortly in informal mode in order tocontinue to hear the many delegations who had yet to speak on the draft Decision and the draft
Ministerial Declaration.  The latest reports received from the subsidiary bodies would be taken into
account in the further deliberations on implementation.
The General Council agreed to the Chairman's proposal and adjourned
.
At the resumed Special Session of the General Council on 1 November, the Chairman
presented a report by the Director-General and hi mself on the consultations they had been carrying
out on the outstanding implementation issues and concerns.  The revised draft decision in document
Job(01)/139/Rev.1 was the outcome of the intensive consultation process they, together with DeputyDirector-General Mr. Rodriguez-Mendoza, had conduc ted since the beginning of October.  They had
made sincere efforts to push the envelope as far as possible on all sides, and it had to be
acknowledged that progress had been made, both qualitatively and quantitatively, in the short time
since the end of July.  The revised draft text had resulted from a painstaking re-examination of the
                                                     
1 Following a suggestion by the Chairman, the General Council agreed to address the two items
together.
2 Job(01)/139/Corr.1, in French only.WT/GC/M/70
Page 2
proposals, and represented a sincere attempt to take into account suggestions by interested delegations
in earlier discussions that possibilities for compressing Annexes  I and II of the previous draft text be
examined, as well as fine-tuning language on some of  the tirets in Annex I, while continuing to try to
make progress on the remaining issues.  The text also reflected elements from the reports of the
subsidiary bodies on the issues referred to them, and took into account, as far as seemed possible fromtheir consultative process, the recent proposals submitted by the least-developed countries.
He wished to acknowledge the great amount of effort that had been put into this process not
only by all Members, but also by the chairpersons of subsidiary bodies, who had worked assiduously
and impressively together with delegations in their respective committees and councils, to come
forward with meaningful recommendations to the General Council.
The Director-General and he believed that the broad approach presented in the revised draft
Decision represented the best possible basis, at the present time, for moving to a resolution of the
outstanding implementation issues and concerns.  It had received a good deal of support in their
consultations over the past few weeks, and offered the most practical way forward, in line with the
General Council Decision of 3 May 2000.  It proposed immediate action on a number ofimplementation issues by Ministers at Doha, and provided that outstanding implementation issues
would be addressed in the course of the future work programme as set out in paragraph 12 of the draft
Ministerial Declaration.  A list of the outstanding issues had been circulated in document
Job(01)/152/Rev.1.  Finally, the draft Decision also recommended related action to ensure that WTO
technical assistance focussed as a priority on assisting developing countries in this area of activity.
There were three points of clarification he wished to make in regard to this draft text:First, with regard to the work programme on special and differential treatment under tiret 96,
it was his understanding that delegations had noted that agreement on the date of July 2002 forGeneral Council decisions in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of that text was on the understanding that
these dates were targets which all Members would make best efforts to meet, and also that this
agreement was without prejudice to the nature of the decisions that might be taken at that time.
Second, with regard to the outstanding implementation issues, he wished to clarify that where
a specific negotiating mandate was provided in the draft Ministerial Declaration, the relevant
implementation issues would be addressed under that mandate, in accordance with paragraph 12(a) ofthat text.  For example, tiret 6 concerning agriculture would be addressed in the ongoing negotiations
on agriculture in paragraph 13 of the draft Declaration;  tirets 42- 44, 46-48 and 50-54 concerning the
Anti-Dumping Agreement would be addressed in the negotiations on WTO rules proposed in
paragraph 24 of the draft Declaration;  and tirets 64-66, 69-73, 76-79 and 81 concerning the Subsidies
Agreement would be addressed in the negotiations on WTO rules proposed in paragraph 24 of thedraft Declaration.  The other outstanding issues would be addressed as a matter of priority by the
relevant WTO bodies, which would report to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) by the end of
2002 for appropriate action, in accordance with paragraph 12(b) of the draft Declaration.
Third, there were also certain outstanding issues which the draft Decision instructed subsidiary
bodies to consider under specific mandates and time frames, for example in the area of Article XIII of
GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping and Subsidies Agreements.  These issues, of course, remained
outstanding, and they should be kept in mind when referring to the compilation of outstanding issues
in document Job(01)/152/Rev.1.
The Director-General and he were confident that the large majority of the proposals in this text
could find acceptance by the broad membership.  At the same time, they understood that there might
still be a few remaining areas of possible disagreement, particularly with regard to the proposals on
Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement, Article XIII of GATT 1994, and textiles and clothing.  These
were areas in respect of which they hoped that Ministers at Doha would be able to build on the goodWT/GC/M/70
Page 3
work that had been done in Geneva, and create a basis for reaching agreement.  For that purpose, the
Director-General and he intended to transmit the draft Decision, together with the related compilation
of outstanding issues, on their own responsibility to Ministers for their consideration and adoption.
Many delegations thanked the Chairman and the Director-General for their report and their
considerable efforts in regard to implementation- related issues, and expressed confidence in their
leadership and in their process.
The representative of Colombia said that it wo uld be impossible for his delegation to join the
consensus on the draft Decision while it contained the current text relating to Article 27.4 of the
Subsidies Agreement, although it could agree to the rest of the text.  The issue of implementation had
originated in the need felt by a number of deve loping countries to rebalance the Uruguay Round
Agreements in the hope of ensuring that they could benefit fully from the multilateral trading system.
Implementation had been a main focus of the WTO's work for some time, the result of which was
Job(01)/139/Rev.1, and his delegation had participated in this work in a constructive and flexible
manner.  One of the key elements in this work had been the question of extensions of transition
periods, which was normal since the Urugua y Round Agreements had left open windows of
opportunity for developing countries to maintain cer tain policies.  In the case of the Subsidies
Agreement, economic, financial and development needs had been the conditions determining
extensions of the transition period.  It had been under these rules, which were the same for all
developing countries, that the implementation exercise had been undertaken on the basis of a number
of problems raised by Members.  First, a way had been sought to modify or clarify the definition ofsubsidies contained in the Illustrative List of Expo rt Subsidies in Annex I of the Subsidies Agreement,
in order to exclude certain measures from the list.  Second, there had been suggestions to raise the de
minimis  level in order to minimize the recurrence of certain subsidies.  Other countries had sought an
increase in the levels established in Annex VII of the Agreement with the aim of maintaining the
exclusion from dispute settlement procedures for those countries with a per capita income exceedingUS $1000.  In this context, his delegation had made counter-suggestions aimed at favouring all
developing countries equally while also resolving some implementation concerns.  The Subsidies
Committee had undertaken a study of the implementation of Article 27.4 with the aim of considering
certain aspects of this issue relative to developing countries with a low share of world trade.
The proposal by the Chairman of the Subsidies Committee approached this issue through
preferential extensions of the transition period which included the identification of certainprogrammes, and which therefore meant certain subsidies and certain countries.  The criterion used
for countries to be accorded an automatic extension was a gross national income of up to
US $20 billion or a share of world trade of less than 0.1 per cent.  Both these criteria were non-
technical and discriminatory against developing countries which had larger populations and
sometimes also a higher relative level of poverty.  Furthermore, this proposal did not recognizeregional differences within countries, or the location of investments having an export component.
The coverage of subsidies in the proposal, for co untries such as Colombia, involved only incentives
which would reduce funds available for other types of assistance.  In the context in which this process
had developed, there had been one essential elemen t – the clear link between these incentives and
investment, since preferential extensions were proposed for programmes applied in free zones amongothers, which was an instrument essential to attracting investment in several countries, and in
particular in the Caribbean region.  From the beginning of the process his delegation had questioned
many aspects of the proposal, including in both formal and informal meetings of the Subsidies
Committee as well as in meetings with the Secretar iat, and it had repeatedly underlined that Colombia
could not accept this proposal.  His delegation had tried to avoid having to take the position it wasbeing forced to take at the present meeting.  Document G/SCM/W/471 was now part of the set of
documents for the consideration of Ministers at Doha, and Colombia was surprised that this proposal
had been included, since it had been questioned by a significant number of countries based on the fact
that the decision would create a new category of countries, which would have serious implications in
the WTO, in regional negotiations and in negotiations on the Subsidies Agreement.  The proposal hadWT/GC/M/70
Page 4
been questioned because it would lead to an imbalance in obligations between countries with the same
development needs, which would occur in an area with  serious implications for investment flows.  A
decision that would exclude Colombia but include all the other countries in the Caribbean region and
central America would have a high cost for Colombia in terms of investment, employment and
exports.  It could also generate disinvestment, given the concentration of light manufacturing.  Thedecision was not the same as other proposed implementation decisions, given its possible
ramifications.  In this case, the competitivity of a country would be seriously compromised.  This
would harm the national interests of his country, and his delegation did not think that this was the aim
of the implementation exercise.  The draft text pretended to create a few preferential conditions and
guarantee against legal uncertainty for investors from countries neighbouring his and would have
negative effects on jobs and exports.  These effects would be even worse if the production from the
enterprises covered by these extensions competed in a major market. Colombia would have liked to
support its neighbours on this issue and to continue to collaborate in the multilateral trading system
and the preparations for the Ministerial Conference, but unfortunately was unable to do so when it
was being asked to agree to lose jobs, investment and exports.
The representative of Pakistan said that all were well aware of the importance his delegation
attached to implementation issues from the very outset, i.e. since well before Seattle.  Almost 100
proposals on implementation had been on the table since then.  It had been particularly difficult to
accept that the progress in addressing and resolving these issues had been as slow, painstaking and
painful as it had been.  Pakistan had always said that progress on implementation issues would enable
it to be more accommodating on the concerns and proposals of other Members.  The 3 May 2000Decision of the General Council had provided that the process of addressing the implementation
issues would be concluded no later than the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  That language clearly
implied, and was understood to mean, that the decisions relating to all the implementation issues
would be adopted before the Fourth Ministerial.  Therefore, the present Special Session was the
appropriate occasion for Members to take the decisions that would conclude the process onimplementation begun on 3 May 2000.  In this context, Pakistan was disappointed with the measures
that had been proposed earlier for adoption in Annex I of Job(01)/139 as early results, as well as the
provisions in Annex II to be adopted at Doha, with  the remaining issues to be consigned to a process
after Doha.  Pakistan had hoped to enrich the Annex I package by adding to it at least the Annex II
proposals.  However, Annex I had been merged in to Annex II, rather than the other way around.
Therefore, his delegation was even more anxious that the General Council should act on the Annex I
and Annex II proposals that were now in the draft Decision.  These proposals clearly did not respondto Pakistan's minimum concerns, especially on textiles, where it had hoped for 50 per cent integration
plus growth on growth, as well as provisions with regard to restraint on anti-dumping and other
measures.
Nonetheless, his delegation had stated the previous day in a spirit of flexibility that it was
prepared to accept the proposals in Annexes I and II as set forth in the revised draft Decision, and was
ready to have the General Council adopt them as a package.  The present meeting should adopt this
package and inform the Fourth Ministerial meeting of this decision, while transmitting the other
outstanding implementation proposals.  Pakistan had noted the statement by Colombia with regard to
Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement and wished to be accommodative of any genuine problemsother developing countries might face.  Therefore, it suggested that this particular proposal be the
subject of consultations among the concerned delegations with a view to arriving at recommendations
for decision by Ministers at Doha.  However, if other areas of the draft text were opened, Pakistan
feared that that this would further erode the package and rob it of any significance, however little, that
it might have for his delegation and others.  He urged that in a spirit of flexibility and compromise,and in order to advance the larger goal of a successful Ministerial meeting in Doha, all Members
accept the package as presented, even though each Member might find an area in the draft text on
which it was not satisfied.  He urged this action on all of the proposals except on Article 27.4.  With
regard to the post-Doha process, Pakistan had carefully examined paragraph 12 of the draft
Ministerial Declaration and had stated its position on this the previous day.  Pakistan would beWT/GC/M/70
Page 5
prepared to consign the other outstanding implementation proposals to a post-Doha process and to
incorporate them in a single undertaking, should there be one, on other negotiating issues.  The
outstanding implementation proposals which related to mandated negotiations in other areas should be
dealt with in those mandated negotiations, as had been suggested.  However, Pakistan urged that the
other remaining issues continue to be dealt with in the special mechanism of the Special Sessions ofthe General Council, because consigning them to subsidiary bodies had not been a good experience in
the past.  Pakistan also urged that all of the outstanding implementation issues be the subject of early
decisions by the end of 2002, as was the position taken by the proponents of these proposals before
Seattle, at Seattle and since Seattle.
The representative of St. Lucia suggested that the minutes of the present meeting be prepared
as quickly as possible, as her Minister needed to know how Members had responded to issues of vital
importance to St. Lucia.  As long as the rules-based system of the WTO was applied in an inflexible
way and disregarded the interests of the smallest Members, such as St. Lucia, there would be no new
rules, because her country would not join any cons ensus on this.  On tiret 4, St. Lucia's original
proposal had been to add it to the outstanding implementation issues, because those issues also had a
time frame of the end of 2002.  Her delegation did not support the establishment of a TradeNegotiations Committee, and thus all of the outstanding issues would be reported on to the General
Council by end-2002.  She would not comment on Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement, since the
Dominican Republic would cover this.  Tiret 97 spoke of a reaffirmation of the Enabling Clause
3,
paragraph 3(c) of which was of fundamental importa nce to St. Lucia.  That Decision had an important
history in terms of the decisions, procedures and customary practices followed by the ContractingParties to the GATT 1947 and the bodies established in the framework of the GATT 1947, regarding
the developing countries' claim to and the developed countries' design for special and differential
treatment suited to the particular needs of individual developing countries.  For example, this
paragraph had been cited by the United States in the early 1980s in its request for a waiver for special
preferences for developing countries in the Caribbean region.  This reference was particularlyimportant in view of the fact that tiret 98 had be en included in the list of outstanding issues.  The
minutes of the present meeting would be very relevant to St. Lucia's ability to join a consensus on any
issue on the table.
The representative of Tanzania, on behalf of the LDCs, said that the present meeting provided
an opportunity to make a significant advance in dealing with the long-standing issue of
implementation.  Implementation issues put forwar d by LDCs had finally been included in the
consultative process leading to the results that Members were now considering.  The LDCs, as part of
the family of developing countries, had also supported the resolution of implementation proposals
made prior to Seattle which had remained the core of the consultations on implementation.  LDC
Ministers in Zanzibar had identified further LDC-specific implementation issues which needed to be
resolved.  The LDCs were pleased to note that the revised draft Decision reflected some of theirproposals.  However, in addition to the fact that a number of proposals had not been taken on board at
all, the way many proposals had been reflected did not meet the intended level of efficacy proposed,
and in most cases much weaker language had made the final product more of a best-endeavour
commitment. Thus, in most cases, what had been refe rred to in the text as "LDC proposals" were not
actually what the LDCs had proposed, but rather what the Secretariat had perceived to be the bestresponse to the LDCs' original proposals.
Among the proposals the LDCs had submitted and on which, during the informal
consultations, they had understood there to be consensus to resolve by the Fourth Ministerial
Conference, were the following:  On the Agr eement on Agriculture, the LDCs sought bound, duty-
free and quota-free market access conditions for exports originating in LDCs which would cover allagricultural products in all forms, i.e. primary, semi-processed and processed.  This issue was not
                                                     
3 "Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing
Countries", Decision of 28 November 1979  (BISD/26S/203).WT/GC/M/70
Page 6
reflected in the draft Decision, although it was well known how fundamental market access was to the
LDCs.  On the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 (the Customs Valuation
Agreement), apart from extension of the transition period provided for in Article 20 of that Agreement
to allow LDCs to acquire the necessary technical assistance and expertise to implement the
Agreement without affecting their respective comp arative advantages under paragraph 2 of Annex III
of the Agreement, they had sought to be allowed to continue their respective reservations concerning
minimum values for a longer period.  This was an issue of fundamental importance to LDCs which
had been omitted in the revised text.  Regarding the proposal for binding and effective
operationalization of special and differential treatment provisions, the current reflection of this was of
a non-committal nature and was disappointing.  On the Agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures and on Technical Barriers to Trade, the LDCs were pleased that their proposals had been
upgraded and brought forward to be resolved by  Ministers at Doha, although the proposals had
unfortunately been diluted.  On TRIMS, whereas in the course of consultations the LDCs had had the
impression that their proposals for exemption were generally supported by Members, the resulting
text did not show clear commitments, and the purported extension or exemption would be subject to
terms and conditions to be negotiated.  On services, their proposals had been omitted in the draft text
and, given the importance the LDCs attached to these proposals, they wished to see them dealt with in
one way or another.  These were only some of the specific concerns the LDCs had with regard to the
draft Decision on implementation.  However, they agreed with others on the necessity to create the
necessary impetus to solve the long-standing im plementation issues, and thus could support the
adoption of the draft Decision as a package, but without precluding the possibility of further
examination of these issues in future and with the hope that the other outstanding issues would beresolved speedily in the context of the framework proposed in paragraph 12 of the draft Ministerial
Declaration.
The representative of Chile said that document G/SCM/W/471, which contained a
communication from the Chairman of the General Council on the proposed procedures in respect of
extensions of the transition period under Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement for certaindeveloping-country Members, was a Subsidies Committee document but was a communication from
the Chairman of the General Council.  There was a contrast between this communication and the
report of the Chairman of that Committee, the latter having clearly indicated that, despite some
progress, there had been no consensus in the Committee on this issue.  Despite this lack of consensus,
the communication from the Chairman of the General Council proposed a procedure.  He wondered
what the basis had been to propose a decision on which a number of Members had expressed concern,
and in certain cases clear opposition, including in consultations held only a few days earlier.  Chile'sposition that it could not accept this proposal had not changed, and it was unable to join a consensus
on it.  This issue was a question of responding to some Members' problems in applying certain
subsidies under the Subsidies Agreement.  Chile had a constructive attitude with regard to these
problems and had tried its hardest to find a solution.
The proposed solution had a number of problems.  First, it was not legally sound.  Countries
with certain programmes qualifying for automatic extensions of a minimum of five years under
Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement would acquire more rights than other Members.
Furthermore, the programmes concerned had never been notified, while those Members who had
complied in good time and as provided for in the rules would be left with the same rights.  Hisdelegation wondered whether the message here was that those who wished to acquire more rights
should leave their obligations unfulfilled, and what the legal basis for this was.  Second, the procedure
proposed would operate in a vacuum, since it involved a sequence which was too easy, perhaps even
dangerous, and which reversed the logic behind existing WTO procedures.  The proposal defined the
eligible programmes in a manner which was very general and vague, and foresaw a lapse of timeduring which they would be notified.  After the notifications had been considered, it was foreseen that
extensions would have to be granted under Article 27.4.  This meant that Members were being asked
to agree now to give more rights to certain Memb ers with regard to unknown programmes.  This was
effectively giving a blank cheque to a group of Members.  In addition, the formulation used toWT/GC/M/70
Page 7
determine which programmes would be eligible was vague, and would be a source of major problems
when the time came to consider whether the programmes met the proposed criteria.  His delegation
wondered where the transparency in this was, and whether it was reasonable and prudent to ask
Members to take a decision on something they were not fully aware of.  Chile also wondered what the
future implications of this precedent would be, and whether it was the best precedent to set for solving
problems.  This course of action would be an incentive to avoid fulfilling obligations, to ignore
precedents and to acquire rights in an irregular manner.  It was a legal and political aberration.
Finally, it would establish a separate category of Members for a group of developing countries.
Chile's economy was relatively weak and vulnerable.  While Chile was not afraid of competition, it
did not welcome the suggestion that it should compete against subsidized exports.  Since it did not
know which programmes would be eligible, it could not assess the effects of the subsidies involved.
It was possible that as a consequence of this decision Chile's output would be affected or that itsexports would be displaced in a third-country market.  His delegation wondered who would face the
workers that would lose their jobs.  In the previous several months, the working methods and
procedures used in the preparatory process for Doha had been transparent and somewhat original.  As
a result, and also due to the confidence all delegations had placed in the General Council Chairman
and the Director-General, it had been possible to achieve good progress in the preparations for Dohaand for the Chairman to produce document Job(01)/140/Rev.1.  In that document, the Chairman had
been able to arbitrate between diverging opinions and to present texts which represented a happy
medium.  However, this arbitration had been possible when it concerned a work programme which
did not alter existing rights and obligations.  The proposed decision on Article 27.4 would alter
existing rights and obligations.  For this reason, this was an area where such arbitration was not aviable approach.  It was necessary to address the problems faced by some Members in this area, but
the solution would have to be within the existing rules, so that a decision could be taken which did not
have adverse economic repercussions on other Members.
The representative of Guatemala said that the issue of extensions of time-periods under
Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement was important for her delegation.  A satisfactory solution was
at hand as a result of intensive work in the Subsidies Committee and the efforts of the Chairman of the
General Council.  Document G/SCM/W/471 set out a procedure under Article 27.4 which built on the
mechanism already foreseen in the Subsidies Agr eement and which would allow certainty and clarity.
Members would know precisely which subsidy prog rammes would be subject to, and which Members
would benefit from, such extensions.  These Memb ers would have the secur ity of knowing how long
they would benefit from an extension, as long as they fulfilled the transparency and standstillrequirements.  Nevertheless, Guatemala was concerned that a time-period had been set out in the
proposal, although discussions on this matter had not been successfully concluded.  This was a matter
which should be left for the consideration of Ministers in Doha.  Her delegation agreed with a number
of other delegations that the General Council should not, and could not, prejudge the result of
Ministers' consideration of this matter.  The question of the time-period should be left open, as it hadbeen in the report by the Chairman of the Subsidies Committee.  Guatemala would prefer to see both
time-periods suggested by Members appear together in square brackets in the draft Decision.
The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his delegation could go along with the
consensus on the draft Decision on implementation, although it was possible that no such consensus
would exist because one of the elements of fundamental importance in this draft Decision had been
challenged, which was the procedures proposed for the extensions under Article 27.4 of the Subsidies
Agreement.  As Guatemala had said, the Chairman's  proposal on this included a date of 2005, which
was not acceptable to the Dominican Republic.  All of the other aspects of the proposed procedures
were acceptable to his delegation as well as to Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Cameroon, Cuba,Ecuador, El Salvador, Gabon, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay,
Sri Lanka, St. Lucia and Zimbabwe.  This group of countries had met with the Chairman and had
requested that further consultations be carried out in Doha in order to solve the problem of the time
frame.  The Chairman had promised that these consultations would be convened in Doha and that
these countries' position would be included in a report that would be made to Ministers.  TheWT/GC/M/70
Page 8
Dominican Republic was certain that in the framework of these consultations Members would be able
to solve the legitimate concerns that had been raised by Colombia and Chile on an issue that was of
great importance to a number of Members.
The representative of the United States said that the proposed draft Decision on
implementation reflected all of the substantial effo rts on the part of the membership to address
implementation issues in a serious and meaningful way.  She had taken up her post in Geneva on the
day of the June Special Session and had heard a long and thoughtful discussion that day, from which
had resulted a number of consultations held throughout the summer which had seen additional hard
work on these many items.  The draft Decision reflected constructive engagement on the part of the
membership on the broad range of subjects, as well as the proposals within the draft text in which the
Chairman had suggested ways to deal with a number of thorny issues.  The United States couldsupport or accept the overwhelming majority of what was proposed in this draft Decision.  However,
some Members had indicated that they had difficulties with some of the specific elements in the draft
text.  Her delegation as well had problems with so me of the proposals, but looked forward to working
with others to bring this process to a successful conclusion.
The representative of Egypt said that adopting a meaningful decision on implementation in
accordance with the 3 May 2000 Decision of the General Council would contribute positively to
consideration of the elements of the work programme at Doha.  However, Egypt was concerned over
new formulations and different ideas introduced in the implementation package at the last minute, in
particular on tiret 67 regarding Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement.  Since Seattle, Members hadbeen engaged in extensive consultations on how to calculate the US $1,000 threshold, and it had been
agreed to use constant 1990 dollars in accordance with the 1992 World Bank data for 1990, which had
been used when Annex VII was negotiated, in order to solve the problem of those countries covered
by Annex VII.  The methodology prepared and presented to Members by the Secretariat at the
Chairman's request was acceptable to Egypt.  The language in the draft Decision of 26 September(Job(01)/139) had also been acceptable to Egyp t, and probably to many other countries, both
developed and developing.  Her delegation had thus been surprised to find that a proposal made in the
Subsidies Committee by one country, a major partner not directly affected by this particular issue, to
introduce a totally new methodology for calculating constant 1990 dollars had been included in the
revised draft Decision.  The effect of this proposal would be to exclude Egypt from benefitting from a
solution to a problem that it had raised, and her delegation could clearly not accept this.  Other tirets
on which her delegation wished to see some changes included the original tiret 9 regarding theAgreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and tirets 19 and 29 on
textiles.  The consultation process should continue, and in good faith, so that a satisfactory solution
could be reached by the time of Doha on the current draft text, which covered no more than half of the
implementation issues raised more than two years earlier.
The representative of El Salvador said that the implementation process was important to El
Salvador, and his delegation had worked constructively in order to achieve positive results at the
Ministerial Conference.  The proposed procedure under Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement was
of vital importance to his country, and docume nt G/SCM/W/471 was a good basis for Ministers to
adopt a decision on this issue at Doha.  Although agreement had nearly been reached on this proposal,his delegation could not accept the time-period suggested in paragraph 1 of that document and
believed this should be left for the consideration of Ministers at Doha.
The representative of Honduras said that his delegation, like the Dominican Republic and
others, could accept the present draft Decision.  His delegation wished to thank Members for their
good faith in allowing the error excluding Hondur as from Annex VII of the Subsidies Agreement to
be corrected, which would help his country to minimise the impact of the recent hurricane.  With
regard to document G/SMC/W/471 containing the proposed procedures for the extension of the time-
period under Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement, Honduras appreciated the Chairman's efforts to
find an acceptable outcome in this area, and could agree to the proposal with the exception of theWT/GC/M/70
Page 9
proposed time-period.  His delegation requested the Chairman to include in the communication he
would send to the Chairman of the Ministerial Confer ence the two time-periods set out in the report of
the Chairman of the Subsidies Committee.  This would be a balanced way of reflecting the
discussions held on this issue in the Subsidies Committee, and would allow Ministers in Doha to
decide on this important matter.  Proceeding in this way would allow more work to be undertakenwith delegations which still had concerns on this proposal, and would allow the needs of all
developing countries to be taken into account.  He wished to underline that it was not the wish of the
proponents of this issue to exclude any other Member from the result.
The representative of Malaysia said that after months of consultations, and after having had to
reject earlier proposals tabled, Malaysia was willing to accept the current proposals, modest as they
were, contained in Job(01)/139/Rev.1 in its entirety.  Malaysia's acceptance of the text was premisedon the understanding that there would be no dilution of the text.  Malaysia urged other Members to
join the consensus on the draft Decision in or der to fulfill the General Council Decision of
3 May 2000.  His delegation had noted the problem raised by Colombia, and understood that the
Chairman would be carrying out consultations on this matter.  Malaysia hoped that an amicable
solution would be found on this issue within the next few days.
The representative of Panama said that his delegation could support the proposed procedure
under Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement set out in document G/SCM/W/471 except for the
time-periods.  There was no agreement thus far on this issue, and the document should reflect both
time-periods contained in the report by the Chai rman of the Subsidies Committee.  The remaining
differences could be settled by Ministers at Doha.  Panama supported the statements on this issue by
Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Honduras.
The representative of Sri Lanka expressed her delegation's appreciation for the proposed
procedures for extensions under Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement for certain developing-
country Members.  Although the overall package on implementation issues did not meet Sri Lanka's
expectations, it could accept the package and urged the General Council to adopt it in its entirety
without any changes.  Her delegation acknowledged the circumstances under which the Chairman had
been compelled to compile the draft text which was to include a proposed procedure and a proposed
decision by Ministers at Doha to address the concerns raised by a number of developing countries
whose share of world merchandise expo rt trade was quite small.  As the report by the Chairman of the
Subsidies Committee (G/SCM/38) noted, the proponents' main objectives were to obtain automaticityand a sufficiently long period of extension, as these two crucial elements had been lacking in the
existing provisions of Article 27.4.  It was therefore clear from the proponents' point of view that any
decision that would come out of the extensive consultations should adequately address these two
objectives.  The proponents had participated in the consultations with a positive attitude and had
showed maximum flexibility in agreeing to various demands of other Members.  This had beenacknowledged in the Subsidies Committee Chairman's report.  That report captured accurately the
comments and suggestions made by delegations during the consultations and drew Members' attention
to the areas and issues where there were divergences.  Two different time-periods had been suggested
for the extension proposed, i.e. 2005 and 2018, and the Committee Chairman's report acknowledged
this by incorporating them both in square brackets, thus leaving it to Ministers to take a politicaldecision on this issue at Doha.  However, the draft Decision in Job(01)/139/Rev.1 had eliminated this
possibility.  While Sri Lanka appreciated the Chairman's efforts to improve the language concerning
the proposed procedure for granting the extensions under Article 27.4, which her delegation approved,
the draft Decision failed to capture the differences of view on the time-periods for the extensions,
which for Sri Lanka was the most crucial element in the draft Decision.  Therefore, Sri Lanka urgedthe Chairman to take into account the representation, as stated by the Dominican Republic, of a group
of developing countries with a small share of trade, including Sri Lanka, on this issue, and to reinstate
both time-periods in the draft Decision.  Since the Chairman had said that he did not intend to amend
the draft Decision, her delegation suggested that the covering letter for the draft Decision convey to
Ministers in Doha the alternate proposals presented by Members.WT/GC/M/70
Page 10
The representative of Uganda said that the present implementation process involved a number
of confidence-building measures, and a positive outcome in this process would contribute to a
successful Ministerial Conference.  His delegation fully supported the statement by Tanzania on
behalf of the LDCs on the draft Decision on implementation.  The proposed texts in paragraph 3 ofJob(01)/139/Rev.1 regarding SPS measures and in paragraph 5 regarding TBT measures were still
best-endeavour clauses calling on Members to provide, to the extent possible, financial and technical
assistance to LDCs to enable them to comply with  their obligations.  As a follow-up to the Brussels
meeting on LDCs, his delegation hoped that there wo uld be the goodwill to effectively implement
these best-endeavour clauses.  Regarding the text under tiret 90, Uganda welcomed the affirmation
that the provisions of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement were mandatory, and the modalities of
ensuring their effective implementation.  This wa s a positive development.  On the cross-cutting
issues, he wished to reiterate that special and differential treatment was vital to his country.  The
original proposal had been to make such treatment binding, but it had not been possible to reach
agreement on this issue at the present stage.  However, his delegation looked forward to working
towards this in the mechanism that would be put in  place to consider it.  Overall, the implementation
package fell short of Uganda's ambitions, but the present text went as far as the Chairman had beenable to take it, and Uganda was prepared to accept it.
The representative of Korea agreed with delegations who had said that considerable progress
had been made since the summer break.  His de legation hoped that with further efforts Members
could come up with a package that would satisfy both developing and developed countries.  Koreacould go along with most of the draft Decision, but had reservations about tiret 56 as it currently
stood.  As Korea had repeatedly emphasized, the original proposal on tiret 56 concerning the
verification of export prices was technically impracticable and administratively burdensome.
Therefore, his delegation had supported the idea of a prior study on fraudulent practices in importing
countries.  However, as long as the cooperation remained non-mandatory, strictly confidential andwithin the authority of the national laws and regulations of the exporting country, Korea could show
some flexibility.  Nevertheless, to Korea's disappointment, its concerns had not been reflected in the
revised text.  On the contrary, the language had been strengthened by replacing "should" with "shall,"
and by replacing "if available" with "where possible".  As his delegation had indicated previously,
Korea supported the relevant proposal made earlier by the Chairman and the Director-General in their
communication in Job(01)/112 of 13 July 2001 for a prior study on fraudulent practices.  This
approach was the best way to proceed in resolving this issue.
The representative of Barbados expressed his delegation's appreciation to the Chairman of the
Subsidies Committee for his tireless efforts on the proposal for extension of the period in Article 27.4
of the Subsidies Agreement.  Barbados had a keen interest in seeing this proposal adopted with
appropriate amendments to the time frames for the extension.  He associated his delegation with the
statements by Guatemala, the Dominican Republic , El Salvador, Sri Lanka and others.  Barbados
supported the procedure outlined in G/SCM/W/471 as well as the communication to Ministers in
Doha of the alternative time frames discussed in the Subsidies Committee.
The representative of Brazil reiterated his country's view that the satisfactory treatment of the
implementation dossier overall was an essential ingredient for a successful Ministerial Conference.
This had become evident over the past months.  Unfortunately, his delegation was not sure how much
reassurance it could derive from the present discussion.  Members had been struggling to put together
a package for adoption before Doha, and the Chairman deserved credit for having worked on
implementation in a synchronised way with preparations for the Fourth Ministerial, and for having
issued a proposed text on 26 September and on 27 October.  This was positive in itself, but it wasdisappointing that Members were still not clear as to what could be done before Doha.  Brazil had not
given up completely, and with some of the ideas floated at the present meeting it could perhaps look
at adoption of what the Chairman was proposing and continue consultations on one item which had
raised some concerns.  Brazil shared some of the c oncerns that had been raised with respect to theWT/GC/M/70
Page 11
proposed language in document G/SCM/W/471 relating to Article 27.4, and had made its position
known in the Subsidies Committee and in the consultations carried out on this issue.  Brazil was
concerned with the criteria for eligibility of beneficiaries of the extension being spelled out in the
document, and would have preferred that those criteria be set out in the minutes of a meeting of the
Subsidies Committee, with a clear indication that th ey would be used for the sole purpose of the
extension and would not be used as a precedent in other cases.  Brazil had taken note of the
replacement of the reference to small economies by the expression "certain developing-country
Members".  This was helpful in the sense that Members were searching for an ad hoc  solution to a
specific problem and not creating a new category of countries.  Brazil understood the problems that
the proponents of this mechanism faced and was ready to continue working constructively on this
issue.
The representative of the European Communities said that on the implementation dossier,
which was both politically important and technically highly complex, Members had made tremendous
progress since July.  Notwithstanding the painstak ing process involved, what was on table provided
the basis for a meaningful decision by Ministers in Doha.  On the vast majority of subjects, the
Geneva process had led to the overwhelming support by the membership for the draft Decision.  TheCommunity had been working hard to be part of this emerging consensus, and he was certain that the
same applied to other developed countries which had made considerable efforts, in the face of serious
domestic constraints, to move forward on this dossier.  However, as the Chairman had said, there
were still a number of issues which continued to raise serious concerns.  While these might be few in
number, at least as far as the Community was concerned, they were very important in theirconsequences, and Ministers would need to address them.
The Community had been amongst those delegations who had pleaded on 3 October to cash
in on those issues that were ripe for consensus.  However, Members had decided otherwise, and the
draft Decision to be put to Ministers included a merging of Annexes I and II of Job(01)/139.Nonetheless, Ministers would need to focus only on a limited number of issues.  In the Community's
view, there would seem to be no objection to the Chairman indicating, in transmitting the draft
Decision, that in his best judgment a vast majority of the items in that draft text were acceptable to
Members.  Most of the work had been done, and it was now up to Ministers to finish it.  It was the
Community's firm conviction that the decision to be adopted in Doha, together with a comprehensive
and constructive approach to dealing with the rema ining implementation issues as part of the future
work programme of negotiations, constituted a meaningful and binding political response to thechallenge of implementation.
The representative of Indonesia recalled that his delegation supported the merging of
Annexes I and II as reflected in the revised text of the draft Decision.  Indonesia joined other
delegations in urging satisfactory solutions before Doha to the pending implementation issuesmentioned previously by delegations.  Regarding unresolved implementation issues, if negotiations
were envisaged for specific implementation problems, these should be part of the single undertaking
and early harvest.  Other pending implementation issues should be addressed as a matter of priority
under the special mechanism of the General Council.  Although the revised draft Decision fell short of
Indonesia's expectations, it was ready, in a spirit of compromise, to join the consensus on it.
The representative of Jamaica expressed his delegation's appreciation to the Chairman of the
Subsidies Committee for his tremendous work and commendable efforts to bring the proposal
concerning developing countries with a small pe rcentage share of exports in import markets and
global trade to the stage it had reached.  The question had been asked as to how to face workers whowould lose their jobs in domestic markets.  Unless this issue were resolved in a manner that would
allow a continuation of export incentives linked to import duties and internal taxes, thousands of jobs
would be lost in export processing  zones and other enterprises.  Jamaica did not wish to see such an
outcome, especially when the extent of trade distortion created by these incentives was minimal or
non-existent.  The text and the procedures outlined in the report by the Subsidies CommitteeWT/GC/M/70
Page 12
Chairman were in the right direction and were acceptable to Jamaica.  Jamaica had met the
notification requirements under the Subsidies Agreement.  He associated his delegation with the
statements by the Dominican Republic and others who had supported this proposal.  Not to apply the
rules flexibly on this critical issue would only demonstrate to many developing countries why they
had to be so wary about new commitments in the WTO.
The representative of Paraguay supported the statement by the Dominican Republic with
regard to document G/SCM/W/471.  His delegation also supported the text on Article 27.4 of the
Subsidies Agreement in the draft Decision.  When talking about correcting imbalances in world trade,
everyone should bear in mind that much political will would be necessary on all sides to be able to
reach consensus on how to correct these imbalances.  Some delegations had concerns on which
countries would be eligible under the proposed procedures, but the criterion was clearly based on theshare of these countries' exports in world trade.  The Members seeking this extension, including his
country, were simply trying to secure their share in world trade.  He agreed with others that Ministers
in Doha should be able to find a solution acceptable to all Members with an interest in this area.  At
the same time, the views expressed by Colombia and Chile would have to be duly taken into account.
Some Members had concerns about the transparency of the proposed procedure, but Paraguaybelieved that transparency would be ensured.  Regarding 
point 11  of the draft Decision concerning the
outstanding implementation issues, the footnote referred to Job(01)/152/Rev.1 which listed these
issues, many of which were far from being agreed or even sufficiently discussed.  There was also a
cross-reference to document Job(01)/140/Rev.1 and in that document, the second paragraph of the
section on the TRIPS Agreement linked work on Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to the work onimplementation.  His delegation believed that this was dangerous, and Paraguay would have
considerable difficulty in accepting this link.  Since the issue of geographical indications still needed
to be discussed in the TRIPS Council, it should not be linked to either of the draft texts on
implementation.
The representative of Canada said that the Director-General had made implementation issues
a political imperative for the organization and deserved credit for providing political leadership in this
area.  The Deputy Director-General, Mr. Rodriguez-Mendoza, had contributed endless hours of
assistance and dedication to that political imperative.  Like the other documents for Ministers in Doha
that were before Members, the draft Decision on implementation represented an important
achievement.  This had not been an easy subject and had not lent itself to easy success.  However, all
Members attached to this issue the degree of importance it deserved, and all had shown good faith,despite the difficulties involved.  As a result, there had been meaningful and considerable progress
since Seattle.  While on a number of issues Members had differed in their interpretation of what
constituted an implementation issue and what would require renegotiation, the implementation
exercise had demonstrated the number of areas where there were implementation difficulties for
developing and least-developed countries, and at the same time had proven that there was awillingness, wherever possible under the circumstances, to find solutions to those legitimate
difficulties.  As a result, the draft Decision on implementation provided an integral, if not exclusive,
part in what many had referred to as a real and substantive development and growth agenda that was
reflected at the heart of all of the texts to be sent to  Ministers.  The draft text provided a solid basis for
Ministers to consider, and Canada supported sending it to them.  Canada could support theoverwhelming number of tirets, but there were a few on which it still had some degree of difficulty,
and these would require further consideration and would ultimately be decided by Ministers in Doha.
This would be entirely consistent not only with the spirit but the letter of the 3 May 2000 General
Council Decision, because the language in the draft text was straight-forward and met the challenge
contained in that Decision.
The representative of India said that there were a few welcome additions in the revised draft
Decision regarding  problems faced specifically by LDCs, which India supported.  He recalled that the
3 May 2000 Decision of the General Council, which had been taken by consensus, stated that the
General Council would assess existing difficulties, identify ways needed to resolve them and takeWT/GC/M/70
Page 13
decisions for appropriate action, no later than the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference.  The
revised draft Decision in Job(01)/139/Rev.1 fell shor t of India's expectations.  This draft text had
dropped some of the issues contained in the earlier draft of 26 September.  For example, the tiret
relating to restraint in initiation of anti-subsidy proceedings against developing countries on the basis
of a higher de minimis  level, though in the nature of a best-endeavour clause, had been dropped.  India
had made detailed comments on that earlier draft text and would not repeat them.  However, it was
disappointed that most of the points it had made had not found reflection in the revised draft text.  For
example, the draft text on textiles and clothing was disappointing, in that even the limited proposals
made by the Chairman were not being agreed to, but no delegation had thus far explicitly rejected the
draft decisions proposed by the Chairman in respect of textiles and clothing.  However, India
recognized that some delegations might have convey ed reservations to the Chairman even before the
meeting, and this was perhaps the reason why the Chairman had indicated at the outset that there wasno agreement on these proposals.
One proposal which India had been pursuing vigorously was tiret 56 on customs cooperation
in cases involving under-invoicing of goods.  It was common knowledge where funds siphoned off
through such methods ended up, and in the current international context India had expected a better
understanding of its proposal.  Unfortunately, the draf t Decision did not address India's concerns fully,
as it made such cooperation contingent on "where po ssible".  India suggested instead that information
be shared "if available".  Similarly, the value of the goods that was to be provided should be the
export value, and this should be so stated in the draft Decision.  India had shown a lot of flexibility in
order to ensure that a decision would be taken on this tiret and trusted that Korea, who had spoken on
this issue, could show flexibility.  India was also particularly concerned that its core concerns relating
to the Agreements on Anti-Dumping and on Subsidies had not been addressed.  Some of its proposals
relating to anti-dumping were to be sent to th e Anti-Dumping Committee for a report within one year.
Even implementation issues relating to mere proce dural matters, such as limiting the countervailing
duty to the excess over and above the remissionable duty, had not been addressed.
Some implementation issues were proposed to be referred to subsidiary bodies with a time
frame for reporting back.  It was not clear how these issues would be dealt with and when decisions
would be taken on the recommendations from the subsidiary bodies.  The dates currently proposed for
the subsidiary bodies to report back should be the dates for decisions by the General Council.
Paragraph 13 of the draft Decision stated that outstanding implementation issues would be addressed
in accordance with paragraph 12 of the draft Ministerial Declaration.  India had commented on
paragraph 12 of the draft Declaration under item 9 of the November General Council agenda.
However, the Chairman's remarks at the present meeting had created some confusion, as Brazil hadsaid.  Paragraph 12 of the revised draft Declarati on suggested a two-track approach, one to deal with
issues on which specific negotiating mandates had been proposed in the Declaration, and the other to
deal with the remaining issues.  It was proposed that the latter category of issues be dealt with in the
relevant WTO bodies which would report to the Trade Negotiations Committee by the end of 2002 for
appropriate action.  India had already made it clear that issues being dealt with under paragraph 12(b)of the draft Declaration were also an integral pa rt of the work programme, and that where decisions
were not possible by the end of 2002, those issues should also be treated on a par with issues covered
by specific negotiating mandates.  Issues dealt with under paragraph 12(a) as well as 12(b) of the draft
Declaration belonged to the single category of outstanding implementation issues, and no artificial
differences could be created while negotiating on these issues as an integral part of the workprogramme.  Also, the list of outstanding implem entation issues circulated on 27 October should be
double-checked so that no outstanding issue, in the sense of a final decision not yet having been taken,
was excluded from the list.  Members had worked hard for three years on implementation issues, only
to find that the package being proposed for decision at Doha and the draft Declaration contemplated
that remaining implementation issues would go into the negotiation package.  Although India was notcompletely satisfied with the draft Decision in Jo b(01)/139/Rev.1, it could go along with the package
as a whole.WT/GC/M/70
Page 14
The representative of Morocco said that this was a very important issue for many developing
countries, and his delegation was happy to see that an earlier contribution by Morocco and six other
countries had helped to move the process forward to what many Members felt was a very acceptable
package.  If those Members who had been pushing for many of the implementation issues could
accept this kind of package, Morocco, as one of the proponents of this very important subject, woulddo the same.  It would be a good gesture towards the developing countries and a confidence-building
measure if the package on implementation could be forwarded to Ministers for adoption in Doha as it
stood.  All delegations had made a lot of sacrifices to bring this dossier to its current stage, and had to
go only a little further to make sure that the package as a whole was adopted on all the subjects it
covered.  Many of these issues were of great importance to developing countries, and adoption of this
package would foster confidence in the organization that implementation problems of developing
countries were being addressed.  The clarification sought by Brazil, India and others on the treatmentof the remaining implementation issues would clearly have to be addressed in a satisfactory manner
along the lines of paragraph 12 of the draft Decl aration, and along the lines of what India had
outlined.
The representative of Mexico said that his delegation was concerned for systemic reasons as
well as for economic reasons by the present discussion of the extension under Article 27.4 of the
Subsidies Agreement.  Subsidies could not and should not be a source of competition.  It was difficult
for Mexico to accept the type of programme proposed, while in agriculture it was fighting for the
elimination of subsidies that affected developing c ountries so negatively.  Many of the subsidies that
many developed countries currently granted in particular regions were taking away investmentopportunities for developing countries.  Mexico was a country of contrasts that suffered from poverty
that was as serious as in the poorest countries of the world, and had decided many years earlier to use
its resources to promote investment in education, health and nutrition, and not to promote the
production of manufactured goods.  The southern part of Mexico clearly competed with North and
Central America and the Caribbean, and thus had a very direct interest in the possibility of grantingexport subsidies to these areas.  Mexico had no problems if these countries granted domestic subsidies
or other internal subsidies.  If the draft decision on extensions under Article 27.4 was taken to Doha it
would be a sign of failure for which all would be to blame, because Members had been unable to
solve this problem.  Mexico welcomed the proposal by Pakistan to make one last effort to find a
mutually satisfactory solution.  Regarding implementation in general, his delegation was pleased that
Members were close to a final solution, as this would be an additional element that would allow
Members to launch a new round of negotiations at Doha.  A study published recently by the FinancialTimes and based on a World Bank report indicated th at a new round of negotiations might lead to an
increase in world trade of US$2.8 billion, of which US$1.5 billion would go to poor countries.
Members should not lose the historic opportunity they would have in the next few days to launch a
new round of negotiations.
The representative of Uruguay said that his delegation had often underlined the enormous
importance of this subject and the need to find an adequate response in the framework of the WTO.
The submission by the G-7 countries had allowed a complicated situation to be unblocked after a long
period.  The Chairman's proposals contained in the two draft texts and the draft Ministerial
Declaration were in line with the G-7 proposals and would allow a package of measures to be adoptedin Doha which corresponded to many of the implementation concerns raised by developing countries,
while at the same time initiating negotiations on all outstanding matters as an integral part of the work
programme.  It would have strengthened the mutual  trust between delegations had it been possible to
adopt the draft Decision on implementation at the present meeting.  However, this was not possible
since there were still difficulties to be addressed.  His delegation, as in the past, was ready to continueits cooperation with others in the search for constructive and, in particular, realistic solutions to all the
issues raised.
The representative of Cuba said that the present process was aimed at rebalancing the existing
agreements to allow developing-country Members to fulfill their obligations and to participate fully inWT/GC/M/70
Page 15
the multilateral trading system.  Her delegation regretted that the draft text, despite the efforts
undertaken, did not contain the concrete measures needed in order to attain the balance developing
countries were looking for.  Her delegation also regretted that the present process would not be
completed before Doha in accordance with the 3 May 2000 Decision of the General Council.  This
would create uncertainty for some Members about their participation in the multilateral tradingsystem.  Cuba had serious concerns about some of the issues addressed in the present draft text and
wished to highlight a few examples.  The time-p eriods which had been proposed under the Agreement
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures had been reduced by half in the text, as also in the case of the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.  The text proposed on Annex VII of the Subsidies
Agreement completely cancelled out the original proposal, which was not even mentioned.  Under the
agriculture heading, the text proposed for tiret 5 merely urged restraint in challenging measures
notified by developing countries, which fell far short of what Cuba was looking for.  Other importantissues had been left out of the draft text, such as those under customs valuation and subsidies.  With
regard to the draft text on geographical indications, Cuba was not in a position to accept it.  Work
among interested Members was continuing in the hope of submitting a new text to the Chairman
shortly.  Cuba supported the statement by the Dominican Republic on the procedures for extensions of
the transition period under Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement set out in documentG/SCM/W/471.
The representative of Venezuela expressed appreciation to the Chairman and the Director-
General for the transparent procedure that had been used for the consideration of implementation
issues.  This process had involved a sustained effort and had brought positions closer together on amatter of great importance to developing countries.  The gap in positions several months earlier had
been quite large.  While Venezuela was not comple tely satisfied with the draft Decision in certain
areas, it was a balanced proposal and was a good basis for the consensus it was hoped Ministers
would achieve in Doha.  Venezuela was ready to accept the draft text as a whole and supported
Pakistan's proposal that a last effort should be made to reach a satisfactory result.  His delegationwould contribute to that effort.  The draft Decision on implementation as a whole, together with
paragraph 12 of the draft Declaration, was very close to a balance, and it would be dangerous to
change it.  Any weakening of paragraph 12 of th e draft Declaration or of the draft Decision on
implementation that would water down the latter would completely modify the positive attitude
Venezuela had shown regarding an enlarged negotiating agenda.
The representative of Japan said that the draft Decision reflected the maximum results
achievable through sincere efforts made by all to respond as positively as possible, and under various
constraints, to the implementation proposals.  With the exception of one or two tirets on which Japan
still had some reservations, his delegation could basically support the draft Decision for adoption by
Ministers at Doha.  Paragraph 12 of the draft Declaration provided a clear procedural proposal to
allow Members to continue to seek appropriate solutions to remaining implementation issues afterDoha.  Japan was prepared to continue to work for appropriate solution to the remaining issues in
accordance with the suggested procedures.
The representative of Switzerland expressed his delegation's satisfaction that the seeds which
had been sown several months earlier were beginning to bear fruit, and hoped that the full harvest
could be gathered in Doha.  His delegation would support the draft text, although some of the
elements in it were not quite satisfactory to Switzerland.  An agreement on implementation issues was
being reached that should not be viewed as anything but substantial.  Members would see the effects
of this decision develop once it, and the decisions to negotiate the outstanding issues, had been taken.
The approach proposed regarding the outstanding issues was practical and realistic.  Switzerland didnot make a substantive difference, in terms of negotiations, between the two categories indicated in
paragraph 12 of the draft Declaration.  His delegation's basic assumption was that both categories of
issues would be negotiated.  It would be foolish to prejudge at the present time the outcome of these
negotiations.  All Members would seek to find an appropriate solution.  It was clear that the subjects
raised under these outstanding implementation issu es might be related to other elements in theWT/GC/M/70
Page 16
activities of the WTO.  Switzerland would make all efforts to find appropriate and realistic solutions
to these outstanding issues.
The Chairman, in summing up, noted that several delegations had referred to the fact that
work had been going on for three years on implementation issues, and expressed appreciation to all
those who had worked hard on this subject.  These included the proponents of the various issues, who
had done an excellent job in putting forward their proposals clearly and tenaciously and in explaining
the importance of this issue.  Those responding had sometimes been placed in a difficult position
although, at the end of the day, very genuine efforts had been made, sometimes in difficult
circumstances, to bring this difficult exercise to a satisfactory conclusion.  Special thanks went to
those delegations who had tried consistently to build bridges and to find ways out of the various
impasses in which Members had found themselves from time to time in this process.  He wishedparticularly to mention the G-7 countries who earlier in the year had managed to find a circuit breaker
for the rather circular situation Members had been in at the time.  He wished to thank again the
Secretariat, the Director-General and particularly Deputy Director-General Mr. Rodriguez-Mendoza,
who had been a hero in this effort, as well as the Ch airpersons of subsidiary bodies, in particular the
Chairpersons of the TRIPS Council, the Agriculture Committee, the Subsidies Committee, the SPSCommittee, the Rules of Origin Committee, the Market Access Committee, the Customs Valuation
Committee and the Committee on Trade and Development.  These individuals had done sterling work
in an effort to satisfy the appetite of the General Council on implementation issues.
Of course, there were different views on the draft texts currently before Members.  Some
Members would be disappointed, and others would perhaps feel that things had gone a little farther
than they had intended.  But he felt that by any standard it was an incredible package when viewed as
a whole.  It was a remarkable achievement to have come up with this package, given all of the
genuine constraints involved, and given, in particular, that Members had not been in a negotiating
phase when this had been dealt with.  It said some thing positive about the organization that at the end
of the day, and after great difficulty, Members had been able to produce something quite respectable.
He proposed that the Director-General and he transmit the document to the Ministerial Conference on
their own responsibility.  As with the draft Declaration, the draft Decision would be sent with a
covering letter which would explain the process and convey that there was a very large measure of
agreement on this package of issues, but that there were still a few points of difference.  On the latter,
the Director-General and he would try to craft some thing so as to enable differing points of view on
some important issues to be appreciated by Ministers, and would recommend that Ministers focus onthe very few points of difference that still remained.
The representative of Brazil recalled that Brazil and India had asked for a clarification from
the Chairman, but said that this would not be necessary if Members concluded on the understanding
that any singling out of any tirets for inclusion under sub-paragraphs (a) or (b) of paragraph 12 of thedraft Declaration would be premature until it had been decided exactly on which of the items
negotiating mandates would exist.  Although his delegation had not noted all of the items mentioned
by the Chairman in his introduction, it had noted that some items were missing from areas that were
foreseen for negotiations in the draft Declaration.  In order to ensure that there was no
misunderstanding, he asked for confirmation that the Chairman's introduction had no status in termsof where the tirets would be forwarded.  The present discussion had revealed some difficulties with
the proposed package, but this in itself should not be reason for great distress, since Members could
continue consulting and were very near agreement on the package.  However, whereas delegations
that had certain difficulties had made these explicit, such as Colombia and certain other delegations,
including Brazil, it was not clear as to why other delegations that had expressed difficulty with thepackage could not adopt it as a whole.  It would be very useful in planning for Doha if those
delegations could indicate exactly what problems they had with the package.
The Chairman said that, in relation to his introductory statement, he had wished to clarify that
where a specific negotiating mandate was provided in the draft Ministerial Declaration, the relevantWT/GC/M/70
Page 17
implementation issues would be addressed under that mandate, in accordance with paragraph 12(a) of
the draft Ministerial Declaration.  He had then used the term, "for example", and had thus not meant
to convey a concrete categorization of the tirets he had listed.  He had simply tried to provide an
illustration to delegations of what might happen.  He hoped that this provided a sufficient clarification
on this matter.  The listing of the tirets he had made provided no status to any of these tirets, and hadbeen designed merely to illustrate the situation to delegations.
The General Council took note of the report by the Chairman and the Director-General,  and
of the statements.
__________