RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONGPA/M/11
4 August 1999
(99-3285)
Committee on Government Procurement
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23 FEBRUARY 1999
Chairperson:  Mr Dick Mak (Hong Kong, China)
1. The following agenda was adopted:
A. Election of the Chairman for 1999
B. Application for observer status
C. Modifications to the Appendices to the AgreementD. Accessions:
(i) Iceland(ii) Chinese Taipei
(iii) Panama
(iv) Accession Procedures
E. Newly acceded WTO Members
(i) Bulgaria(ii) Mongolia(iii) Kyrgyz Republic
(iv) Latvia
F. Review of national implementing legislationG. Negotiations under Article XXIV:7H. Other business
(i) Least Developed Countries
(ii) Korea - Procurement of International Airport Construction Corporation
I. Date of the next meeting.GPA/M/11
Page 2
A. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN FOR 1999
2. The Committee elected Mr. Dick Mak (Hong Kong, China) as its Chairman for 1999.
B. APPLICATION FOR OBSERVER STATUS
3. The Committee agreed to grant observer status to the Government of Mongolia , pursuant to
the decision it had taken on this matter (GPA/1, Anne x 1) and in response to the request received from
that country (GPA/W/80).
C. MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPENDICES TO THE AGREEMENT
4. The Chairman said that, since the Committee's October 1998 meeting, Japan (GPA/W/78
and 79) and Singapore (GPA/W/82) had notified proposed modifications to their respective
Appendix I.  Since no objections had been raised within the prescribed time-period, the modifications
by Japan had entered into force, on 13 November and 27 November 1998, respectively (WT/Let/274
and 275).1
D. ACCESSIONS
(i) Iceland
5. The representative of Iceland said that his delegation had engaged in bilateral consultations
with the delegations of the United States, Canada and Switzerland regarding its draft offer submitted
on 22 June 1998 (GPA/W/73), which would be revised in the light of these consultations.  Subject tofurther requests for consultations from any other delegations, Iceland had the intention of completing
its accession procedures before the next meeting of the Committee.  The representative of the United
States said that his delegation would communicat e a few questions to the delegation of Iceland
following the bilateral consultations held in December 1998.
(ii) Chinese Taipei
6. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that no further bilateral consultations had been held
since the previous meeting regarding his delegati ons's revised offer (GPA/SPEC/1/Rev.1).  At the
next meeting, his delegation hoped to be able to report on more substantial progress with respect to
bilateral consultations with certain Parties.
(iii) Panama
7. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had engaged in bilateral
consultations with Panama on a range of issues with respect to the revised offer submitted on
10 December 1998 (GPA/SPEC/3/Rev.1).  His delegation hoped to make progress regarding its
several remaining concerns with a view to concluding Panama's accession process as soon as possible.
8. The representative of the European Community said that the delegation of Panama had been
informed of the outstanding points on which Panama would need to make further progress.
9. The representative of Panama said that his authorities were working on the questions that had
been received from Parties in the bilateral consultations.  His delegation welcomed further comments,
suggestions or requests from any other Parties.
                                                     
1 Modifications by Singapore subsequently entered into force on 19 March 1999 (WT/Let/297).GPA/M/11
Page 3
(iv) Accession Procedures
10. The Chairman  said that a WTO Member may accede to the Agreement under Article XXIV:2
on terms to be agreed between that government and the Parties.  In accordance with the Decision on
Accession adopted by the Committee, consultations on accession were held between the acceding
country and Parties on the terms of accession (GPA/ 1, Annex 2).  While holding such consultations
was a matter between the acceding country and individual Parties to the Agreement, the Committee
could consider the ways in which it could have a rôle in facilitating the overall process of accessions.
11. The representatives of the European Community, the United States , Singapore , Canada  and
Switzerland said that the procedures for accessions should be streamlined.  The representative of the
European Community said that the accession process consisted of two parallel tracks.  First, the
assessment of the consistency of the national legislation and procurement practices of the applicant
country with the requirements of the Agreemen t.  Second, the negotiation of market access
commitments by agreeing on the lists of entities to be covered in the schedule of the acceding country.
The Committee should aim at improving the procedures involved in both tracks.  The representatives
of the European Community, the United States , Singapore , Canada , Switzerland , Iceland  and Latvia
said that, in order to accelerate the initial pro cess of information gathering, the Committee should
agree on a Checklist of Issues that acceding countries could use in providing information concerningthe basic features of their national legislation and procurement regimes.  The Checklist of Issues could
be similar to the one adopted for notification of national implementing legislation of Parties and could
incorporate certain additional elements specific to the accession process (GPA/1/Add.1).  The
responses of the acceding country to the Checklist of Issues would provide a common basis for the
process of exchange of questions and answers between Parties and the acceding country and wouldhelp in avoiding duplication in the resources allocated by all in this phase of the accession process.
12. With regard to the negotiations of market access commitments, the representative of the
European Community said that the Committee should agree to the establishment of a set of general
principles that could guide an applicant country in drawing up its initial offer of entities,notwithstanding that subsequent negotiations would be conducted on a bilateral basis.  The extent towhich an applicant country would be expected to apply such principles would be determined by its
level of development.  The European Community applied a general approach to accession
negotiations whereby acceding countries were expected to meet certain conditions in preparing their
offers.  For instance, the threshold values in the offers should be the standard thresholds in the
Annexes of the majority of Parties.  However, a request for higher thresholds could be considered on a
case-by-case basis, provided that it was justified and a clear timetable for its reduction established.
Whereas industrialized applicant countries should not provide for offset requirements, developingcountries might provide for such requirement, where justified.  Depending on the level of
development of the acceding country, such requirem ents should be gradually reduced and, eventually,
eliminated.  Any derogations from the national treatment and non-discrimination principles, for
instance in the form of preferences or  set-aside schemes, should be time-limited and their existence
should be justified.   With regard to individual Annexes, all procurement by central governmentauthorities should be covered in Annex 1, except for direct defence-related procurement.
Non-privatized entities in the network sectors such as water, electricity and transport that were not
privatized were expected to be covered under Annex 3.  The coverage of Annex 4 should extend to
procurement in all of the services sectors where the applicant country had made market access
commitments under its GATS Schedule.  All public works and construction services of CPCDivision 51 should be covered in Annex 5.  The representative of the European Community said that
Parties should take a proactive approach to negotiations with applicant countries by providing eachapplicant country with an indication of what they would expect to be included in its initial offer.GPA/M/11
Page 4
13. The representative of the United States said that any acceptable package of general principles
would need to have certain flexibility built into it.  It would also be useful to set out an indicative
timetable for the different stages of the accession process, which could be adjusted in accordance with
the circumstances of each individual applicant country.
14. The representative of Japan said that, while the suggested improvements to the procedures
would be valuable, they would not be adequate to ensure the efficiency of the accession process.  In
view of the objective of making the Agreement more universal, transparent and easily accessible to
countries with different economic systems or philosophies, efforts should be made to resolve the
difficulties that acceding countries faced in their negotiations with Parties.  The divergence of views
among Parties concerning the coverage of Annex 3 entities was one of the main difficulties in the
negotiations of entity lists.  In terms of Article I of the Agreement, Annex 3 contained all other
entities that procured in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement.  Without any reference,baseline or benchmark for the inclusion or exclusion of an entity, Parties did not have a common
notion of a balanced offer as regard Annex 3 entities.  An offer from an acceding country was
evaluated on the basis of different standards used by Parties and any perceived significance of the
sectors offered.  Rather than developing the general principles for the preparation of offers, the
Committee might give better guidance to acceding countries by agreeing on the meaning of the term"government procurement".  The work relating to th is matter in the context of the review of the
Agreement currently under way would contribute to the efforts of improving the process of
accessions.
15. The representative of the United States said th at the relative complexity of the Agreement was
not the only reason for the limited membership in th e Agreement.  Joined by the representative of
Canada, he said that the expansion of the participation in the Agreement would also require efforts by
acceding countries to improve their procurement systems as well as meeting the basic principles of theAgreement.  The representative of Canada said th at the matter of the clarification of the meaning of
the term government procurement might be addressed more appropriately in the context of the
ongoing review of the Agreement under Article XXIV:7.
16. The representative of Singapore, supported by the representative of Japan , said that the
Secretariat should prepare a synopsis of the schedules in Annexes 1-3 of Parties which would allow
acceding countries to make comparisons between the complex lists of commitments in various Parties'
schedules.  This would be a useful input for negotiations and would assist the acceding countries in
the preparation of their entity offers.  The representative of the European Community said that the
entity lists in Annexes 1-3 were complicated.  However, the non-paper by the Secretariat ondiscriminatory provisions circulated with footer "gpa38" on 31 October 1997 gave an adequateillustration of the coverage in Annex 3 entities.  The representative of the United States said that it
would be difficult to make comparisons between the schedules of Parties.  For instance, each Party
had a different government structure which was reflected in the Annex 1 lists of entities, and the
functions of Annex 3 entities varied among Parties.  Besides, a comparison of all the various ways in
which the existing Parties had previously addressed certain issues in their Schedules would not beuseful.  Negotiations with the acceding countries were conducted bilaterally and reflected the
particular priorities and interests of individual participating countries.
17. In concluding the discussion of this item, the Chairman said that the Secretariat should draw
up, for the consideration of the Committee, a draft Checklist of Issues that the acceding countries
could use in providing information on the main features of their national legislation and procurementregimes.  The delegation of the European Community  would be invited to come forward with a note
on the general principles of preparation of offers by acceding countries that might be used by the
Committee in its future consideration of the matter.  The Committee so agreed.GPA/M/11
Page 5
E. NEWLY ACCEDED WTO M EMBERS
(i) Bulgaria
18. The representative of Bulgaria said that the preparatory work was being carried out in
Bulgaria regarding accession to the Agreement, the preparation of the new law on public procurement
and the reform of the state administration.
(ii) Mongolia
19. The Chairman said that the communication by Mongolia requesting observer status in the
Committee also contained a request for technical assistance (GPA/W/80, paragraph 2).  The
representative of the European Community, supported by the representative of the United States , said
that, with a view to avoiding the duplication of technical cooperation efforts of various Parties and toensuring the optimum targeting of resources available for this purpose, the Committee should draw up
a programme of technical cooperation for the benefit of Mongolia, this being without prejudice to thequestion of financing.
20. The Chairman said that the Secretariat should be invited to draw up, in consultation with
interested delegations, an outline of a technical cooperation programme for Mongolia, identifying the
specific areas of cooperation that might be needed in connection with its accession to the Agreement.
It was so agreed.
(iii) Kyrgyz Republic
21. The Chairman said that the Working Party on the Accession of the Kyrgyz Republic had
taken note of a commitment of the Kyrgyz Republic to initiate negotiations for membership in the
Government Procurement Agreement upon accession to the WTO by tabling an entity offer at that
time, and that, if the results of the negotiations were satisfactory to the Kyrgyz Republic and thesignatories of the Agreement, the Kyrgyz Republic  would complete negotiations for membership in
the Agreement by 31 December 1999 (WT/ACC/KGZ/26 and 29).  The Kyrgyz Republic had become
a WTO Member on 20 December 1998.
2
(iv) Latvia
22. The Chairman said that the Working Party on the Accession of Latvia had taken note of a
commitment that Latvia would initiate negotiations  for membership in the Government Procurement
Agreement upon accession to the WTO by tabling an entity offer at that time, and that if the results of
the negotiations were satisfactory to Latvia and the signatories of the Agreement, Latvia would
complete negotiations for membership in the Agreement by 31 December 2000 (WT/ACC/LVA/32).
Latvia had become a WTO Member on 10 February 1999 and had been an observer in the Committee
since 4 June 1996.
23. The representative of Latvia said that Latvia would submit an initial offer in the near future.3
F. REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
24. The Chairman said that the Committee was to take up any outstanding points relating to the
review of the national implementing legislation of the European Community and Korea that had been
held at the October 1998 meeting.                                                     
2 Kyrgyz Republic subsequently applied for observer status on 26 February 1999 (GPA/W/83) and
applied for accession and submitted a draft offer on 11 May 1999 (GPA/SPEC/4).
3 Latvia applied for accession to the Agreement and submitted a draft offer on 16 June 1999
(GPA/SPEC/5).GPA/M/11
Page 6
25. The representative of Korea said that his delegation would communicate its written responses
to the questions put by the delegation of Canada as soon as possible (Job No. 5328).
26. The Chairman said that, in accordance with the agreed procedures and the schedule for the
review of national implementing legislation, the Committee was to take up the legislation of
Switzerland (GPA/15) and the United States (GPA/2 3).  The written questions put by Canada, the
European Community and the United States to Switzerland (with Job Nos. 763, 117 and 1040,
respectively on 10 February, 13 January and 24 February 1999) and the written replies by Switzerland
to the questions put by the European Community (with Job No. 858 on 18 February 1999) had been
circulated prior to the meeting.  The written questions put by Canada and the European Community to
the United States (with Job Nos. 763 and 117, respectively on 10 February and 13 January 1999) and
the written replies by the United States to th e questions put by the European Community (with
Job No. 1041 on 22 February 1999) had also been circulated.  As it had been the case with theprevious reviews, each Party could provide an introduction to the responses to the questions that had
been put to it by other Parties.  He would then offer the floor to other Parties for any other questions
or comments.
27. The Committee carried out the review of the legislation of Switzerland and the United States
on the basis of the written questions and answers and the oral statements made by the two delegations.Parties were invited to submit any further questions that they wished to put to the two delegations by
31 March 1999.
4  The delegations of Switzerland and the United States would provide written
responses to these questions by 15 May 1999.  The full record of the review of the legislation of
Switzerland and the United States will be circulated in the GPA/- series of documents.
28. Following the reviews, the Chairman suggested  that the Committee should take up, at its next
meeting, any outstanding points with respect to the legislation of the European Community, Korea,
Switzerland and the United States.  At that meeting, it would also initiate the review of the national
implementing legislation of Canada (GPA/13).   In accordance with the agreed procedures for the
review, Parties would be invited to submit their written questions to Canada by 15 June 1999 and
copies would be made available to the Secretariat which would circulate them to other Parties.5  The
delegation of Canada would provide written responses to these questions by 15 September 1999.  It
was so agreed.
G. NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXIV:7
29. The Chairman said that informal consultations had been held on 9 December 1998 and
22 February 1999 on the negotiations under Article XXIV:7 on the basis of a revised informal
Checklist of Issues, the most recent version of which was dated 25 January 1999 (circulated with
footer "gpa78").  In the light of those consultations, it had been agreed that a further informal meetingwould be held on 10-11 May 1999 and that, at that meet ing, the work would be carried forward in the
following way:
(i) Delegations would revert once more to the issues of information technology and
procurement methods on the basis of the note by the Chair attempting to crystallize
the state reached in the discussions and to identify the key questions that need to bepursued (Job No. 973).  Canada had been requested to consider updating its proposals
on information technology.  On procurement methods, Parties were encouraged to
submit contributions, in particular on how the various procurement methods under
discussion are presently handled in their national procurement regimes.  Papers from
                                                     
4 No questions had been submitted as of 2 August 1999.
5 The questions from the European Community and Hong Kong, China put to Canada were circulated
on 16 June 1999 as Job No. 3867 and on 26 June 1999 as Job No. 3423, respectively.GPA/M/11
Page 7
the European Community and the United States on procurement methods had been
foreshadowed.
(ii) Delegations would revert to the issue of statistical reporting, on the basis of an
updated version of the note by the Chair which would record the comments made onthe draft revision of the text of Article XIX:5 (Job No. 765).
(iii) Delegations would continue the Article-by-Article review of the Agreement on the
basis of an updated version of the two-column table which would reflect the
proposals on individual Articles that had been made at the present meeting.
Delegations were encouraged to submit concrete proposals.  In this connection,
Hong Kong, China had foreshadowed a revised proposal on Article XV and Japan aproposal on Article XXIV:6(b).
(iv) With regard to the elimination of discriminatory provisions, the points made in the
discussion would be recorded in a revised version of the Checklist of Issues.
Furthermore, a revised version of the Secretariat note on the coverage of serviceswould be circulated in the light of the comments submitted.  Delegations were
encouraged to continue efforts to remove discriminatory provisions through bilateral
and plurilateral consultations and to keep the Committee informed of developments.
Delegations would revert to this matter at the next informal meeting on the
Article XXIV:7 negotiations.
(v) In accordance with the agreed time-frame and the work programme which set the
third WTO Ministerial as the target date for the completion of the negotiations on at
least the simplification and improvement of the Agreement, two more informal
consultations would be held in the first half of this year, respectively on 10-11 Mayand 30 June 1999.  Delegations were also reminded that it was agreed that
suggestions and proposals should be tabled no later than 30 April 1999, this being
without prejudice to the right of participants to put forward at a later date modified or
additional proposals where necessary.
H. O
THER BUSINESS
(i) Least Developed Countries
30. The representative of the European Community  said that all WTO Members were committed
to better integration of the least developed countries into the WTO system.  The practical
implementation of the relevant provisions of Arti cle V:12 of the Agreement, which allowed a Party
"to grant the benefits of the Agreement to suppliers in least developed countries which were not
Parties, with respect to products and services or iginating in those countries", would enhance the
participation of least developed countries in the Agreement and in procurement markets.  Joined by
the representatives of Japan and the United States , she suggested that the Committee should adopt a
decision requiring all Parties to extend the benefits of the Agreement to all the least developed WTOMembers.
31. The Committee agreed to revert to this matter at its next meeting.
(ii) Korea - Procurement of International Airport Construction Corporation
32. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had requested consultations
with Korea on 16 February 1999 and looked forwar d to resolving this issue as soon as possible
(WT/DS163/1 and GPA/D4/1).GPA/M/11
Page 8
33. The representative of Korea said that his Government continued to consider that the Korean
Airport Construction Authority was not covered by the Agreement.  His delegation would come
forward with detailed arguments in this respect in the course of the WTO dispute settlement
proceedings.
I. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
34. The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting on 5 October 1999.
__________