RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONGPA/M/17
2 May 2002
(02-2517)
Committee on Government Procurement
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 FEBRUARY 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Martin Loken (Canada)
1. The following agenda was adopted:
A. Election of the Chairperson for 2002
B. Application for Observer StatusC. Modifications to the Appendices of the Agreement
D. Accessions:
(i) Chinese Taipei(ii)  Estonia(iii) Latvia(iv) Bulgaria(v) Slovenia
(vi) Albania
(vii) Moldova(viii) Jordan(ix) Kyrgyz Republic(x) Panama
(xi) Lithuania
(xii)  Newly Acceded Countries(xiii) Streamlining the Process of Accessions
E. Review of National Implementing LegislationF. Negotiations under Article XXIV:7G. Other BusinessGPA/M/17
Page 2
A. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON FOR 2002
2. The Committee elected Mr. Martin Loken (Canada) as Chairman for 2002.  The Chairman
expressed his appreciation to the Committee for re-electing him but noted that his posting to Geneva
may end before the end of 2002.
B. APPLICATION FOR OBSERVER STATUS
3. The Committee agreed to grant observer status to the Government of China, pursuant to the
decision it had taken on this matter (GPA/1, Annex 1) and in response to the request received from
that country (GPA/W/173).
C. MODIFICATIONS TO THE  APPENDICES OF THE AGREEMENT
(i)  Modifications by the United States to reflect recent changes in the administrative
structure of the Federal Government (GPA/W/153)
4. The Chairman said that the delegations of Canada, the European Community and Japan had
submitted communications seeking further information from the United States with respect to the
proposed modifications by the United States to Appendix I in document GPA/W/153
dated 5 September 2001 and objecting to the proposed modifications going into effect at the end of
the 30-day period.  These communications had been respectively circulated in documentsGPA/W/167, GPA/W/163 and GPA/W 162.  The responses by the United States to the questions
raised by the three Parties had been circulated in documents GPA/W/183-185.
5. The representatives of Japan and the European Community
 said the responses from the
United States would be reviewed soon and any furthe r questions would be indicated at a later stage.
The representative of Canada said that her delegation would determine its next steps on the basis of a
careful consideration of the responses received from the United States.
6. In concluding the discussion, the Chairman said that the Committee would revert to this
matter at its next meeting.
(ii) Japan's Notification Relating to NTT
7. With respect to the proposed modification by Japan to its Appendix I notified in
document GPA/W/91, the Chairman said that consultations had been held between Japan and the
delegations of the United States, the European Community and Canada on the basis of the questions
put to Japan by these delegations (GPA/W/ 97, GPA/W/99, GPA/W/100 a nd GPA/W/100/Add.1) and
Japan's answers thereto (GPA/W/104, GPA/ W/104/Add.1, GPA/W/107 and GPA/W/108).  In a
communication dated 19 October 2001, the delegation of the United States had withdrawn its
objection to the modifications proposed by Japan (G PA/W/166).  No developments had been reported
by the delegations of Canada and the European Community since the October 2001 meeting.
8. The representative of Canada said that further bilateral consultations had recently been held
with Japan on the matter.  The representative of th e European Community said that his delegation had
held bilateral meetings with Japan and was curren tly reviewing all the information provided.  TheGPA/M/17
Page 3
representative of Japan said that he hoped that his delegation would be able to report positive
developments on the issue at the next meeting.
9. In concluding the discussion, the Chairman said that the Committee would revert to this
matter at its next meeting.
(iii) Japan's Notifications Relating to Railways
10. With respect to the proposed modification by the delegation of Japan to its Appendix I in
documents GPA/W/144, 145 and 146 dated 29 August  2001, the Chairman said that communications
had been received from the delegations of the United States, Canada and the European Community
(GPA/W/151, 155 and 156) seeking clarification and objecting to the proposed withdrawal of the
three Japanese railway companies, namely East Japan Railway Company, Central Japan Railway
Company and West Japan Railway Company from the coverage of the Agreement.  Relevant
notifications received from Japan had been circulated in documents GPA/W/152, GPA/W/152/Corr.1and GPA/W/179.  Additional questions received from the European Community and the United States
had been circulated in documents GPA/W/164 and 165 respectively and Japan's responses in
documents GPA/W/180 and GPA/W/181 respectively.
11. The representative of the United States said that his delegation was currently in the process of
reviewing Japan's responses in documents GPA/W/180 and GPA/W/181.  Bilateral consultations had
recently been held with Japan and his delegation had followed up with some additional questions
relating to the discussions.  The United States continued to reserve its position and hence could not
agree to the proposed modification to Appendix I ta king effect.  The representative of the European
Community said that his delegation had met with Japan and also continued to reserve its position.  It
would return to the issue once a more thorough revi ew had been carried out.  The representative of
Canada said that her delegation had recently held further discussions with Japan and was reviewing
the responses to its questions.
12. The representative of Japan said that Japan would continue its bilateral discussions with the
delegations of the United States, the European Community and Canada and hoped that a positive
result could be achieved in the near future.
13. In concluding the discussion, the Chairman said that the Committee would revert to this
matter at its next meeting in the light of further developments.
(iv)  Modifications by the United States to Appendices II and III (WT/Let/407)
14. The Chairman said that the proposed modifications to Appendices II and III by the United
States dated 25 September 2001 (GPA/W/154) had become effective on 25 October 2001
(WT/Let/407).
D. ACCESSIONS
(i) Chinese Taipei
15. Reporting on the developments regarding Chinese Taipei's accession, the Chairman said that
Chinese Taipei had submitted a second revised offer which had been circulated in
GPA/W/SPEC/1/Rev.2 dated 28 January 2002.  The dele gation of Chinese Taipei had made a further
revision to this document, copies of which had been made available to delegations at the presentmeeting.GPA/M/17
Page 4
16. The representative of Chinese Taipei expressed the appreciation of his delegation to the
Parties to the Agreement for their support for Chinese Taipei's accession to the WTO.  His delegation
hoped that the process of accession to the Agreement could be completed at the present Committee
meeting, so that Chinese Taipei could commence th e fulfilment of its commitments in this respect
under the WTO.  The process of application to accede to the Agreement had been initiated at theInterim Committee on Government Procurement in June 1994.  The application for accession to the
Agreement and the initial offer were contained in document GPA/IC/SPEC/1 dated 17 March 1995.
Following the submission of the latest revised offer contained in document GPA/W/SPEC/1/Rev.2
dated 1 February 2002, several interested Parties, including Japan; the European Community; Hong
Kong, China; Switzerland; Canada and Israel had raised concerns in respect of Note 4 in Annex 3 and
General Note 6.  Bilateral consultations with these Parties had resolved their concerns and the
documents reflecting the revisions made pursuant to the consultations were being made available toParties at the present meeting.  Chinese Taipei requested that, having regard to its application for
accession and the consultations held with the Parties, the Committee agree to its offer and take a
decision in accordance with Article XXIV:2 of the Agreement regarding the terms of accession of
Chinese Taipei based on this offer.
17. The representative of Singapore said that his delegation would require more time in order to
study the second revised offer circulated on 1 February 2002 which had been recently revised.
Singapore had several serious concerns.  First, Chinese Taipei had proposed to exclude a list of goods
such as electricity machinery and rail transport eq uipment and services and construction relating to
the electricity sector from its commitments under the Agreement.  It was also specified in the offer
that these carve-outs would not apply to selected  Parties.  Special treatment would therefore be
accorded to these Parties by allowing their suppliers exclusive access to the procurement market for
the aforementioned goods and services, while not extending the same benefits to several other Parties,
including Singapore.  His delegation had strong reservations to such an approach which ran counter to
the letter and spirit of the WTO.  Second, Singapore was of the view that all goods were to be covered
by the Agreement. Although Article V:4 on Special and Differential Treatment for DevelopingCountries permitted exclusion of certain goods, Chinese Taipei in its accession to the WTO had
declared that it would not claim any right grante d under the WTO agreements to developing country
Members.  Third, the list of services sectors from which Singapore had been excluded contained
sectors of particular interest to Singapore.  Fourth, Note 4 to Annex 3 provided that, with respect to
procurement by one of the listed entities, C hunghwa Telecom, the Agreement shall apply only to
suppliers and service providers of the Parties that provided access to their own telecommunication
markets for Chinese Taipei's suppliers and service providers under the condition of reciprocity.Furthermore, this reciprocity requirement would not apply in the case where the telecommunications
sector of a Party was run by its private sector without government influence or control over the
procurements conducted by it.  It was not clear which Parties and which entities would be covered by
that provision.  His delegation had concerns about the reciprocity requirement contained in the offer
and requested Chinese Taipei to further clarify wh at the provision would entail.  Singapore looked
forward to receiving a positive response from Chines e Taipei in its next revised offer and hoped that
these issues of concern to his delegation would be resolved.
18. The representative of the European Community said that his delegation had a continuing and
strong interest in completing the accession negotiations with Chinese Taipei.  It had had fruitful
bilateral consultations in the course of the present week with Chinese Taipei and it appreciated theprogress that had been made as a result of these consultations.  His delegation needed more time for a
final screening of the latest version of the offer which had just been received.  A few important
technical questions might need further clarification.  It was not expected that those clarifications
would alter the substance of the offer.
19. The representative of the United States said that his delegation appreciated the efforts made
by the delegation of Chinese Taipei in the course of negotiations and the intensive effort made duringGPA/M/17
Page 5
the present week to conclude the negotiations as soon as possible.  The initial agreement reached
between the United States and Chinese Taipei a number of years ago had recently been reconfirmed.
His delegation appreciated the important commercial benefits to all Parties of concluding the
negotiations for accession as soon as possible.  It had hoped that a decision on the accession of
Chinese Taipei could have been taken at the present Committee meeting on the basis of theunderstanding that negotiations had resolved issues that had been raised to date.  However, given
concerns raised by other Parties at the meeting, he hoped that remaining outstanding issues could be
resolved very quickly.  His delegation encouraged all Parties to work with Chinese Taipei to that end.
It understood that there might be some technical modifications or technical corrections that might be
necessary in Appendix I.  With any such modifications, it expected to retain the substantive basis of
the negotiations and the commercial agreements that had been reached in those negotiations.  It hoped
that those issues could be resolved quickly and a final offer could be circulated to the Parties within30 days, so that the Committee could take a decision to approve the accession of Chinese Taipei at the
earliest possible date.
20. The representative of Canada said that her delegation welcomed the application for accession
of Chinese Taipei. Canada had had extensive, detailed and fruitful discussions with Chinese Taipei
concerning its offer over the past few years.  Her delegation was pleased with the efforts of ChineseTaipei to develop an offer which reflected the commercial interests of both countries.  Based on the
latest revised offer circulated on 21 February 2002, Canada joined others in supporting the accession
of Chinese Taipei and appreciated the benefits of proceeding with this matter as expeditiously as it
was feasible.
21. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation appreciated the efforts made by the
delegation of Chinese Taipei in the course of accession negotiations.  Switzerland had concluded
negotiations with Chinese Taipei recently and looked forward to its accession in the near future.
22. The representative of Japan said that his delegation did not have any substantive objection to
the offer circulated on 21 February 2002.  Her delegation hoped that the decision on accession would
be taken soon.
23. The representative of Israel said that his authorities were close to finalizing consultations with
Chinese Taipei.  They hoped that the process could be completed soon.
24. The representative of Norway said that his delegation had reached an agreement with Chinese
Taipei on the basis of some modifications to the second revision of the offer.  His delegation hoped
that soon Chinese Taipei would become a Party to the Agreement.
25. The representative of Hong Kong, China said  that the informal discussions with the
delegation of Chinese Taipei on issues of concern to his delegation had had a fruitful outcome.  More
time would, however, be needed in order to co nsult with authorities in Hong Kong, China.
26. The representative of China said that China was neither opposed to the accession of Chinese
Taipei to the Agreement nor intent on delaying the process of accession.  However, document
GPA/SPEC/1/ Rev. 2 contai ned some nomenclatures which were not consistent with both the Report
of the Working Party on the Accession of Chinese Taipei to the WTO and the Protocol of Accessionwhich were the basic legal documents for the accession of Chinese Taipei as a separate customs
territory.  China requested that this problem be resolved before a decision were taken by the
Committee on Chinese Taipei's accession to the Agreement.
27. The representative of Chinese Taipei thanked the Parties to the Agreement for their support of
the accession of Chinese Taipei as expeditiously as possible.  With regard to Singapore's request
regarding General Note 6 and Note 4 to Annex 3  related to Chunghwa Telecom, she said that the offerGPA/M/17
Page 6
to Singapore could be adjusted through bilateral consultations under the condition of reciprocity.
With regard to comments made by the observer from China, the negotiation process for accession to
the Agreement which had been initiated in March 1995 was currently drawing to a close.  She
expressed the regret of her delegation that some non-economic issues had been raised with regard to
the accession.  Her delegation believed that under the rules of procedure for the participation ofobservers in the Committee, any request or statement made by a non-Party to the Agreement should
not have an impact on the decision made by the Committee on the accession.  Chinese Taipei
emphasized that it would be against the interests of Parties if a bona fide  accession case, which had
involved the work of many Parties for many years, were to be turned down or affected by political
elements unrelated to the substance of the Agreement.  Moreover, the concern raised by China was
related to the English translation of the entity list.  Within the context of the Agreement, the entities
listed were legal subjects for tendering purposes.  Any amendment to the nomenclature of thoseentities would cause legal confusion and severely jeopardize legal clarity and certainty.  Any legal
disputes related to this matter would greatly co mplicate Chinese Taipei's participation in the
Agreement and would ultimately hurt the commercial interests of all Parties to the Agreement.
Chinese Taipei considered that a further delay caused by a problem of this nature would set a bad
precedent for the accessions to the Agreement and hoped that this could be prevented.
28. The Chairman said that all decisions in the Committee, including decisions on accessions,
were taken by the Parties.  He noted the appreciation of Parties for the hard work and efforts of the
Chinese Taipei delegation and said that it was clea r from the comments made by the Parties that the
accession was at a very advanced stage.  It was also clear that many delegations needed more time to
further review the latest revised offer and that some delegations had remaining substantive concerns.He encouraged all Parties to complete the outstanding work on the accession of Chinese Taipei and
said that he hoped that the Committee would be in a position to take a decision by the time of its next
meeting.
(ii) Estonia
29. The Chairman drew the attention of the Committee to the revised offer recently received from
Estonia and circulated in GPA/SPEC/9/Rev.1 on 12 February.  In addition, document
GPA/SPEC/24/Rev.1 contained Estonia's replies to th e follow-up questions put by the United States1.
(Further follow-up questions put by the United States were circulated in GPA/W/XXX)
30. The representatives of the United States; Japan ; Canada ; Switzerland ; and the European
Community said that the revised offer from Estonia was still under review by their respective
delegations.  The representative of the United States encouraged all Parties to hold consultations with
Estonia and to pursue any interests they may have relating to the accession with a view to moving
forward as quickly as possible.
31. The Chairman encouraged all interested Partie s to intensify their bilateral contacts with
Estonia so as to enable the Committee to take a decision on Estonia's accession at the next meeting.
(iii) Latvia
32. The representative of Latvia said that, since the last meeting, bilateral consultations had
continued with interested Parties, namely the European Community and Israel.  Consultations with the
European Community towards the end of last year were believed to have been very fruitful, although
a number of issues had been raised that warranted further reflection.  As a result of its bilateralconsultations, Latvian authorities had started to prepare an amended offer.  However, due to
reorganization of the national public procurement administration it had not been possible to complete
                                                     
1 Further follow-up questions put by the United States were circulated in GPA/W/190GPA/M/17
Page 7
the revised offer.  The revised offer was expected to be circulated in the near future and subsequently
consultations would be undertaken with all interested Parties.
33. The representative of the United States said that an agreement with Latvian authorities had
been reached late last year on the terms of Latvia's accession.  The United States looked forward to
Latvia's accession as soon as possible.  However, if the revised offer were found to contain significantchanges, it would have to be reviewed so as to en sure consistency with the earlier bilateral agreement.
34. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation had concluded negotiations with
Latvia last year and had hoped that its accession could have been completed by the date of the present
Committee meeting.  His delegation was concerned about the delays to Latvia's accession.
Switzerland hoped that the future revisions to Latv ia's offer would not have major implications in
terms of the substance covered, so that negotiations with Latvia would not have to be reinitiated.
35. The representative of Canada said that her authorities had almost concluded their bilateral
consultations with Latvia.  She encouraged Latvia to submit its revised offer as soon as possible,
noting, however, that her authorities would need to review the revised offer before reaching a final
conclusion.
36. The Chairman urged interested Parties to complete bilateral discussions with Latvia as soon
as possible so that a decision on Latvia's accession could be taken by the time of the next Committee
meeting.
(iv) Bulgaria
37. The Chairman said that information on Bulgaria's national legislation had been circulated in
GPA/49 and its replies to the Checklist of Issues in GPA/W/136.  Bulgaria's replies to the questions
received from Hong Kong, China;  Switzerland;  Canada and the United States had been circulated in
documents GPA/SPEC/22/Rev.1, GPA/SPEC/21/Rev.1, GP A/SPEC/23/Rev.1 and GPA/W/171/Rev.1
respectively.  Any follow-up questions should be forwarded to Bulgaria by 8 April 2002 and Bulgaria
should answer such questions by 24 May 2002.2  Informal plurilateral consultations had been held
between Bulgaria and interested Parties on 21 February 2002 which had focused mainly on theexamination of Bulgaria's national legislation.
38. The representative of Bulgaria said that intensive domestic consultations had taken place
regarding the preparation of an initial offer.  In th is regard, Bulgaria had to take into account the new
situation after Doha and the work of the Committee on Article XXIV:7 negotiations, and had also to
assess Bulgaria's export opportunities to markets of countries Parties to the Agreement.
39. The representative of the United States said that his delegation appreciated the work done by
Bulgaria in respect of following up its commitment with regard to the Agreement and understood that
domestic work was an important element of the accession process.  His delegation was however
disappointed that greater progress had not been made and hoped that Bulgaria could submit an offer
as soon as possible.
(v) Slovenia
40. The Chairman said that Slovenia's replies to the Checklist of Issues had been circulated in
document GPA/W/158, dated 5 October 2001.  Slovenia's answers to the questions received from the
European Community, the United States and Switzerland had been circulated in documents
GPA/SPEC/28/Rev.1, GP A/W/172/Rev.1 and GPA/W/175/Rev.1, respectively.  The Chairman said
                                                     
2 Follow-up questions put by the United States to Bulgaria were circulated in GPA/W/189GPA/M/17
Page 8
that any follow-up questions should be forwarded to Slovenia by 8 April 2002 and Slovenia should
answer such questions by 24 May 2002.3  Informal plurilateral consultations had been held between
Slovenia and interested Parties on 21 February 2002.
41. The representative of Slovenia emphasized the importance of the field of government
procurement to his country.  Internal consultations had been initiated in Slovenia with regard to the
preparation of the offer and the Committee would be informed of any developments.
42. The representatives of the United States, supported by the representative of  Switzerland,  said
that his delegation appreciated Slovenia's detailed responses to the Checklist and hoped that an offer
would be submitted soon.  The representative of the United States believed that the process for
accession could proceed in parallel with internal discussions relating to revision of domestic laws andhoped that this would continue to be the case with Slovenia's preparations for accession.  The
representative of Switzerland said that the information on national legislation submitted by Slovenia
had been reviewed by his delegation and Slovenia's procurement regime appeared to be consistent
with requirements under the Agreement.
(vi) Albania
43. The Chairman said that Albania had submitted its replies to the Checklist of Issues in
document GPA/W/161, dated 12 October 2001, and information on its national legislation in GPA/65.
The European Community;  Hong Kong, China;  the United States;  Switzerland;  and Canada had
submitted questions to Albania in documents GPA/SPEC/26, GPA/W/169, GPA/W/170,  GPA/W/174
and GPA/W/178, respectively.  Albania's replies to the questions submitted by the United States had
been circulated in document GPA/W/170/Rev.1.
44. Regarding next steps, the Chairman said that Albania should submit its replies to the
questions it has received from other Parties by 22 March 2002.
(vii) Moldova
45. The Chairman said that Moldova had applied for accession on 8 January 2002 (GPA/63).
Moldova's replies to the Checklist of Issues had been circulated in GPA/W/177 dated 9 January 2002.
The questions forwarded by Hong Kong, China to Moldova had been circulated in document
GPA/W/182.
46. In accordance with the indicative time-table,  the Chairman invited Parties to submit any
questions to Moldova by 9 March 2002 and Moldova would answer any such questions by
9 May 2002.4
(viii) Jordan
47. The representative of Jordan said that a national committee comprised of members from both
private and public sectors had been formed. Its tasks included developing Jordan's programme for
accession; preparing the final entity offer;  and forming working groups charged with collecting and
analysing data related to procurement of works, goods and services in the light of the potential interest
of local industries.  The resulting study would serve as a guide for the preparation of the entity offer.The national committee had held several meetings during the last two months with concerned parties
from the public and private sectors regarding Jordan's accession.  It had also formed a working group
                                                     
3 Follow-up questions put by the United States to Slovenia were circulated in GPA/W/192.
4 Moldova's replies to the questions put by Hong Kong, China were circulated in GPA/W/193 on
25 April 2002.  The questions put by the United States were circulated in GPA/W/ 177.GPA/M/17
Page 9
focused on studying the status of the industrial and services sectors in order to help with the
preparation of the entity offer.  Private sector members of the national committee had appointed local
consultants to analyse the effects of accession on specific sectors in order to identify possible offsets
and threshold levels that might be included in Jordan 's initial offer.  Jordan expected to submit the
initial entity offer prior to the end of 2002.  Jordanian authorities were currently engaged in the reviewand updating of national procurement legislation.  A decision had been taken by the Cabinet to merge
the Government Tenders Directorate and the General Supplies Directorate into one entity.  Bilateral
consultations with the United States, the European Community and Canada had been held on
21 February 2002 in the course of  which technical assistance needs had also been discussed.
48. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had held a series of
consultations on the issue of Jordan's preparations for accession.  The United States was looking
forward to receiving an initial offer as soon as possible.
49. The representative of Canada encouraged Jordan to proceed with work on a draft offer in
parallel with the work regarding the review of its procurement system and assessment of its
compliance with the provisions of the Agreement.
50. The representative of the European Community encouraged Jordan to intensify work on
modifying domestic legislation in order to bring it into line with the Agreement.  Jordanian requests
with regard to technical assistance had been taken note of and the European Community would
consider appropriate action.
51. The representative of Switzerland commented that the close cooperation between private and
public sectors outlined by Jordan was very important.  Referring to the Jordanian studies on the
impact on domestic sectors of participation in the GPA regime, he said that Switzerland hadencountered great difficulty in carrying out similar studies and that therefore some limitations should
be expected as to what could be achieved through sectoral impact studies.
(ix) Kyrgyz Republic
52. The Chairman said that the Kyrgyz Republic had applied for accession and had submitted its
initial offer on 11 May 1999 (GPA/SPEC/4).  The written questions and comments received from the
United States had been circulated in document GPA/SPEC/7.  The Chairman had been informed that
there had been some delay in the preparation of replies to the Checklist due to technical and human
resource challenges, but that they would be submitted to the Committee before the next meeting.
(x) Panama
53. The Chairman said that at the May 2001 meeting the Committee had been informed of the
status of bilateral consultations with Panama (GPA/M/16, paragraph 37), but since then there had
been no further developments in that respect.
 (xi) Lithuania
54. The representative of Lithuania said that her Government would implement all commitments
undertaken during its accession to the WTO.  Lithuania fully acknowledged the importance and
overall benefits of joining the Agreement on Govern ment Procurement.  The decision to join the
Agreement had been recently approved by her Government and the formal application would be
submitted shortly.5 Lithuanian authorities were currently analysing and preparing both the draft offer
                                                     
5  Subsequently circulated in document GPA/66GPA/M/17
Page 10
and the responses to the Checklist.  However, some delay may be unavoidable due to the revision of
the national government procurement law currently under way in the Lithuanian Parliament.
55. The representative of the United States said th at it would be useful to maintain contact and
continue consultations between acceding countries and Parties to the Agreement during the
development of new legislation so that acceding Parties could ensure that any revisions wereconsistent with the requirements of the Agreement.  The United States looked forward to receiving an
offer from Lithuania.
56. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation hoped that Lithuania would soon
submit its replies to the Checklist of Issues.  This would be especially important in the light of the
Parliamentary process which had been continuing for some time, as the Checklist would provide
information on the major aspects of the Lithuanian practice.
(xii) Newly Acceded Countries
57. The Chairman said that Oman's replies to the Checklist of Issues had been circulated in
GPA/W/141.  Questions put by the European Community, the United States and Canada to Oman in
November and December 2001 had been circulat ed in documents GPA/SPEC/27, GPA/SPEC/25 and
GPA/W/176, respectively.
58. The representative of Oman said that a seminar on government procurement held been held in
Muscat on 5 and 6 February 2002.  It had been largely attended by representatives of the public and
private sector and had served the purpose of making authorities aware of the intricacies of the
Agreement on Government Procurement.  On behalf of her authorities, she thanked the WTO
Secretariat for organizing the seminar and the govern ment of Switzerland for providing the services of
an expert.  Following the seminar, a governmental task force responsible for pursuing matters relating
to government procurement had held its first orga nizational meeting.  Oman would soon be applying
for accession to the GPA.
59. The representative of Croatia said that a new public procurement law had entered into force at
the beginning of 2000.  Pursuant to the changes the new law had brought to the public procurement
system Croatian authorities had started an  internal consultation process in order to assess all issuesand different aspects related to accession to the Agreement.  They expected to be able to initiate the
procedures and submit the application for accession shortly.
60. With respect to the other newly acceded countries , the Chairman recalled that China, Georgia
and Mongolia had commitments regarding the Agreement on Government.
(xiii) Streamlining the Process of Accessions
61. The representative of Israel said that his delegation was concerned with a systemic issue.  The
process of negotiations amounted to a set of offers which was being passed from one Party to another
and which then had to be taken as a de facto result, without negotiations between all Parties having
effectively ever taken place.  Israel believed that the Committee should consider in more general
terms how an offer was built and the nature of the negotiation process, especially with regard to the
participation of smaller Parties in these negotiations.
62. The Chairman said that Parties may pursue their interests bilaterally with each of the acceding
countries and that the accession process would not be completed until all Parties had been satisfied.  It
was in the interest of all Parties that the acce ssion process worked to the benefit of all Parties.GPA/M/17
Page 11
E. REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
63. The Chairman said that, at the last meeting, the delegations of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands with respect to Aruba and Iceland  had been invited to submit their notification of the
implementing legislation in accordance with the requirements in GPA/1/Add.1.  No such submissions
had been made as yet.
64. The representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands said that he had been informed by the
authorities of Aruba that work was still in progress on the notification and that a specific time-frame
for submission could not be indicated.  He said that the issue had the fullest attention of the authorities
and hoped that the notification could be submitted as soon as possible.
F. NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXIV:7
65. The Chairman said that an informal meeting on Article XXIV:7 negotiations had been held on
19-20 February 2002.  The group had pursued the Article-by-Article review of the Agreement on the
basis of the proposals by various delegations compiled in the Secretariat note "Suggested Drafting
Changes to the 1994 Agreement", dated 14 November 2001 (Job No. 8599).  Delegations also had
available to them: a non-paper by the European  Community "Drafting Proposals on Tendering
Procedures and Technical Specifications" (Job No. 876);  three communications by the United States,
namely "Review of the Agreement on Government Procurement - Revised US Proposals"(Job No. 1051), "Drafting Proposals Relating to Article V" (Job No. 1235) and "Explanatory Note
with Examples of Coverage of 'Build-Operate-Tra nsfer' Contracts and 'Concessions for Public Works'
Under the Agreement" (Job No. 1043);  a communication by Japan "Japan's Comments on the US
Proposal in Job No. 2867" (Job No. 1141);  and a note by the Secretariat on "The Meaning of the
Term "measures" under GATT/WTO Jurisprudence" (Job No. 1158).  The group had a detaileddiscussion of the proposed drafting changes to the Articles of the Agreement relating to tendering
procedures (Articles VII-XV and Article XVIII, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4), technical specifications
(Article VI), and developing countries (Article V), and of the proposals for new definitions related to
tendering procedures, technical specifications and BOT contracts.  The Secretariat would update the
"Suggested Drafting Changes to the 1994 Agreement" in light of the proposals recently submitted andthe detailed comments made and clarifications sought at this meeting.  As agreed at the October 2001
meeting, he had had a series of informal consultations with a view to making a proposal for a
timetable and work programme for all elements of the work under Article XXIV:7 at the present
meeting.  A draft timetable and work program reflecting the outcome of the informal consultations
including an informal session held with the Parties on 19 February was contained in
Job No.696/Rev.1 dated 19 February 2002.  In light of these consultations, he suggested the following
timetable and work programme for the negotiations under Article XXIV:7 of the Agreement:
"Article XXIV:7(b) and (c) of the Agreement calls  on the Parties, not later than the end of the
third year from the date of its entry into force,  to undertake further negotiations, with a view to
improving the Agreement and achieving the greatest possible extension of its coverage among
all Parties on the basis of mutual reciprocity, having regard to the provisions relating to
developing countries and eliminating any rema ining discriminatory measures and practices
which distort open procurement.
Modalities for the negotiations
• The further negotiations under Article XXIV:7 shall be undertaken and completed as a
whole on all elements (i.e. improvement of the text, expansion of coverage and
elimination of discriminatory measures and practices), but there may need to bedifferences in modalities and timing among the elements.GPA/M/17
Page 12
• The negotiations shall be completed by 1 January 2005.
• The general view has been that the work on the revision of the coverage-related areas in
the text of the Agreement and the negotiations on the other two elements are
interdependent.
• Building on the work in the informal consulta tions that has been done since the review of
the Agreement was launched in 1997, the aim is to have provisional agreement on the
revised text of the Agreement by the 5th Ministerial Conference, recognizing that it may
not be possible to conclude some of the elements of the text before the work on the other
two aspects of the negotiations are concluded.  In any event, the revised text will not take
effect until all elements of Article XXIV:7 negotiations have been completed.
• The negotiations on the expansion of the coverage and the elimination of discriminatory
measures and practices shall start with an exploratory phase until the end of 2002.  These
negotiations are to be concluded by 1 January 2005.
• The work programme could be modified in light of any new developments.
• A minimum of four informal meetings shall be foreseen for 2002 and for 2003 and, where
possible, two to three days shall be allocated for each session.
Arrangements for the revision of the text
• The discussion at each of the meetings in 2002 shall focus on selected categories of
issues, respectively those in basket 1 (basic principles, scope and coverage and related
definitions, exceptions, developing countries and accessions), basket 2 (tendering
procedures, technical specifications and rela ted definitions), and basket 3 (enforcement,
institutions, statistical reporting).  All proposals relating to these issues should be tabledno later than 1 September 2002.
• Key substantive issues and drafting options shall be identified with respect to each Article
or group of Articles by the end of the third meeting in 2002.  Starting at the fourthmeeting in 2002, the discussion shall focus on ways of bridging the remaining gaps on the
basis of a text by the Chairman.
Arrangements for the other two elements
• Regarding the work on the other two elements, a preparatory phase will take place in
2002 aimed at the identification and study of the areas to be negotiated and agreeing on a
detailed programme for the negotiations by the end of the year.  Delegations who wish toput forward ideas on the possible approaches regarding the negotiations on the expansion
of the coverage and the elimination of discriminatory measures including the procedures
for tabling of offers and requests should do so by 15 October 2002.
6
• The negotiations on these elements shall be initiated in 2003 with the aim of concluding
them by 1 January 2005.
                                                     
6 Related to these aspects of the negotiations, the group already has before it, for reference, the
submissions by Canada (Job No. 6604-2001), Hong Kong, China (Job No. 5270-1998) and the United States
(Job No. 3843-1998).GPA/M/17
Page 13
Note
• In 1996, the Committee agreed to undertake an early review, starting in 1997 with an
examination of modalities, with a view to th e implementation of Article XXIV:7(b) and (c)
of the Agreement.  The review will, in partic ular, cover the following elements:  expansion
of the coverage of the Agreement;  elimination of discriminatory measures and practices
which distort open procurement;  and simplif ication and improvement of the Agreement,
including, where appropriate, adaptation to adva nces in the area of information technology.
It was also agreed that the review shall seek the expansion of membership of the
Agreement by making it more accessible to non-Parties (GPA/8)."
66. With regard to the next informal meeting in Ma y, the Chairman suggested that that the group
have a focused discussion on issues in basket 1 in the work programme (basic principles, scope and
coverage and related definitions, exceptions, developing countries and accessions) and that the group
revert to the discussion of the issues in basket 2 (tendering procedures, technical specifications and
related definitions).  To facilitate the discussion of basket 1 issues, an annotated agenda would becirculated setting out some of the issues that the group might discuss in relation to this basket.
67. The Committee agreed to the way of moving forward proposed by the Chairman.
G. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
68. The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting on 30 May 20027.
________
                                                     
7 Subsequently postponed to 31 May 2002.