Minutes of the Meeting s2

RESTRICTED WORLD TRADE G/C/M/47 25 April 2001 ORGANIZATION (01-2076)

Council for Trade in Goods

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

Held in the Centre William Rappard on 14 March 2001

Chairperson: Ambassador Pérez del Castillo

The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by WTO/AIR/1498. The proposed agenda contained in G/C/W/253 was adopted.

I. CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT: REQUEST FOR A WAIVER BY CAMEROON UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEMENT (G/C/W/245), (G/C/W/245/ADD.1)...... 2 II. TRIMS AGREEMENT: REQUEST BY EGYPT FOR EXTENSION OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5.3 (G/C/W/249)...... 2 III. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 9...... 4 IV. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER THE 1999 WAIVER FOR PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT FOR LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/304)...... 5 V. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER – NEW ACP-EC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (G/C/W/187, G/C/W/187/ADD.2 AND G/C/W/204)...... 6 VI. FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS...... 12 VII. REQUEST BY INDIA, PAKISTAN AND HONG KONG, CHINA: CTG'S FUNCTIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV OF THE MARRAKESH AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION – TRANSPARENCY REGARDING NEW RESTRICTIONS ON TEXTILES AND CLOTHING PRODUCTS COMMENTED UPON BY THE TEXTILES MONITORING BODY...... 13 VIII. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS FOR SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE COUNCIL...... 16 IX. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE CTG...... 17 X. OTHER BUSINESS...... 17 G/C/M/47 Page 2

I. CUSTOMS VALUATION AGREEMENT: REQUEST FOR A WAIVER BY CAMEROON UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEMENT (G/C/W/245), (G/C/W/245/ADD.1)

The Chairman drew the attention of Members to documents G/C/W/245 and G/C/W/245/ADD.1, which contained a request and related information for a waiver for Cameroon under Article IX of the WTO Agreement concerning the Customs Valuation Agreement. As the delegation of Cameroon was not present, the Council agreed to revert to this item in the future.

II. TRIMS AGREEMENT: REQUEST BY EGYPT FOR EXTENSION OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5.3 (G/C/W/249)

The Chairman noted that the Council had before it in document G/C/W/249 dated 23 February 2001 a request by Egypt for an extension of the transition period under Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement. The request referred to measures notified by Egypt in September 1995 in document G/TRIMS/N/1/EGY/1.

The representative of Egypt introduced the request submitted by the Government of Egypt pursuant to Article 5.3 of the Agreement on Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs) for a five year extension of the transition period for the elimination of the measure previously notified in 1995 in accordance with Article 5.1 of the TRIMs Agreement. The request came after similar requests by a number of developing countries and economies in transition and following a long and difficult debate between all stakeholders in Egypt on whether the said measure fell precisely within a specific category of the illustrative list annexed to the TRIMs Agreement. This debate had not reached a decisive conclusion. Nevertheless, the Government of Egypt had decided to go ahead and submit the request.

The measure in place provided incentives to promote the establishment and development of domestic industries. These incentives took the form of reduction of customs duties levied on imported components incorporated in the domestic process of production. The reduction in customs duties increased with the increase of the percentage of locally produced components in the final product. The principal aim of this measure was to enhance the development of the industrial base, in particular the feeding industries, through attracting foreign investment flows and encouraging transfer of technology. It also aimed at creating employment opportunities and addressing the chronic trade deficit. The said measure applied to enterprises that voluntarily chose to use this incentive scheme and to foreign, local as well as joint ventures without discrimination and without being limited to any particular industry. A large number of enterprises benefitted from this measure.

The Government of Egypt was concerned that the termination of this measure could lead to serious repercussions on the economy, particularly a sharp decline of long established industries and related enterprises, decrease in investments, considerable increase in unemployment rates as a result of closure of companies and jeopardizing the socio-economic objectives of the far-reaching reform program that Egypt had been implementing since 1991, as well as a set-back to the ambitious trade liberalization program steps taken since that time. The industrial sector in Egypt was currently undergoing a period of structural adjustment. A large industrial modernization program had been prepared to increase the competitiveness of the industry. The requested extension would allow the industry to adjust, while reinforcing Egypt's efforts to continue its trade liberalization. Taking into account the outlined development, financial and trade needs, she looked forward to the positive consideration of Egypt's request by the Council for Trade in Goods in accordance with the General Council decision of 8 May 2000. She recalled that the General Council decision noted: "the concerns of those Members who have not notified TRIMs or have not yet requested an extension, and the need to preserve the multilateral character of this process". Her delegation was ready to cooperate with all G/C/M/47 Page 3 interested members to ensure an accelerated and speedy consideration of the request. She was confident that the WTO Members would spare no effort to support Egypt's own efforts to further liberalize its trade while enhancing its production capacities, in order to be in a position to take full advantage of the opportunities and benefits of the multilateral trading system.

The representative of Japan's reading of Article 5.3 of the TRIMs Agreement was that such requests should be made before the expiration of the original extension period. It seemed difficult to support this request, but his delegation was willing to engage in discussions with Egypt and other interested parties. The nature of the specific measures for which Egypt was seeking an extension was not clear. In the original notification, the reference to certain incentives in the form of customs duties reduction to promote the establishment and development of industries in the country also required clarification.

The representative of Colombia hoped due flexibility would be shown with regard to Egypt's extension request. The request was within the rights under the Agreement granted to countries that needed a transition period in order to adapt their economic and commercial realities to the requirements of an increasingly globalized environment. The benefits which the industry had received from this measure had been outlined, and justified the request for an extension's transition period.

The representative of the United States said that under the TRIMs Agreement WTO Members were required to notify any measure not in compliance with the TRIMs Agreement no later than three months after the entry into force of the WTO Agreement. For this reason, she questioned whether Egypt received any transitional period under the TRIMs Agreement. Even if the initial notification had been timely, she rejected the notion that a country that had been in violation of its TRIMs commitment since at least January 2000, and possibly for over six years, should receive any favourable treatment by this Council. If the CTG decided positively on this request, Members would not only be diminishing the terms of the TRIMs Agreement but would also need to answer to those countries that notified their measures properly and removed them as instructed under the Agreement. She suggested Egypt examine options outside of the 5.3 process and seek a waiver request under Article IX of the WTO Agreement.

The representative of the European Communities said that he needed more information about the scope and detail of the measures, including the practical modalities which would ensure an effective oversight of a measure of this breadth and scope. He considered that Article 5.3 was not the appropriate way of looking at this particular request and said that the waiver process under Article IX would be the appropriate way forward.

The representative of Malaysia supported the request made by Egypt, though it was perhaps unclear whether it was a TRIM or not. He had made clear at other meetings of this Council that Article 5.3 did not have a deadline as to when such an application should be put forward or when it could not be considered. That measure taken by Egypt was important for industrial development and for addressing their chronic trade deficit situation.

The representative of Canada believed the deadline for requests pursuant to Article 5.3 had passed. Egypt had provided little information on the breadth of this measure and information on which to assess the merits of this proposal which made the request problematic.

The representative of India said that in view of the fact that the 8 May 2000 General Council Decision tried to capture all situations (presentation of requests at a later stage, or requests not presented until now, or even non-notified TRIMs) the Chairman of the CTG should include Egypt's request for consideration until such time as Egypt had concluded its own internal debate as to whether the concerned measure was a TRIM or not. G/C/M/47 Page 4

The representative of the Philippines wished to second the US proposal that there should be further consultation on what options would be available in the context of the Marrakesh or GATT 1994 framework, so that Egypt could receive sympathetic consideration as far as these measures were concerned.

The Chairman said that on the part of all Members there was the necessary goodwill to consider the problem raised by Egypt through its request. Some expressed concern for the late presentation of the request, and others considered Egypt's request to be in conformity with its rights in paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the TRIMs Agreement. Some delegations thought the appropriate path was not through Article 5.3, but rather via a request for extension according to Article IX of the WTO Agreement, i.e. through a waiver. Finally, it was said by some delegations there was a lack of information which they considered necessary for them to be able to make a decision on the scope of this request. His conclusion would be that the CTG invite delegations who needed more information to present to Egypt in writing their questions which would enable them to have further clarification, and then he called on his successor to hold further consultations on the way in which the Council should proceed in respect of this request without prejudging the final result. The Council would have an opportunity to come back to this subject in its next meeting in April. He saw no objections and it was so agreed.

III. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 9

The Chairman recalled the Council had exchanged views on a proposal by Pakistan for a joint study by the Secretariats of UNCTAD and the WTO to assist developing countries in carrying out the review of the TRIMs Agreement. At the last meeting on 15 November 2000 he had informed the Council that the two Secretariats had consulted on this matter and agreed to cooperate in the preparation of such a study. On that occasion, a request was made by one delegation for further consultations to determine the terms of reference for the study. The Secretariat had informed him that in its contacts with interested delegations on this issue the delegation of Pakistan had indicated that the study should focus on the three specific elements which Pakistan had identified at the meeting of 5 April and 18 May 2000, when it first made its proposal for such a study. As reflected in para. 3.2 of the minutes of that meeting (G/C/M/43) these elements were: (i) whether TRIMs were helpful for development; (ii) the developmental implications of disciplining other performance requirements; and (iii) the importance of local content requirements in developmental policies of developing countries. Also at least one delegation which had expressed an interest in this matter indicated that it was still reflecting on the terms of reference of this study.

The representative of the United States suggested additional consultations. She would not object to a study on how the TRIMs Agreement related to development, but would need to ensure that the recent work on this topic that had already been done, in particular by the OECD, could also be brought in. It had been her experience that the OECD Secretariat's work in this area had been useful in understanding some of the complicated issues involved. She suggested that the OECD Secretariat be contacted by representatives from the WTO and UNCTAD to gauge whether the OECD would be interested in participating in this study. It was important to the US that this be a balanced study to reflect concerns of investors and the difficulties they faced regarding TRIMs and how TRIMs might hamper a successful investment climate for developing countries.

The representative of Malaysia was apprehensive as to whether the OECD Secretariat should be involved, and he urged the Chair to continue consultations on this. Prior to an agreement by the membership of the CTG, the WTO Secretariat should not contact the OECD Secretariat. The original proposal was a joint study by UNCTAD and WTO and this new proposal to bring in the OECD Secretariat was something he wished to reflect further on. G/C/M/47 Page 5

The representative of India said that India supported Pakistan's proposal for a joint study between UNCTAD and WTO. The Chair had held consultations on the terms of reference of that joint study. In light of what had already been discussed and agreed upon, it was not appropriate to introduce a new participant to that study. She could go along with the US suggestion that further consultations be held on the terms of reference of the study.

The representative of Pakistan reiterated the importance Pakistan attached to the study because of the socio-economic impact that this agreement had on the economies of developing countries. He confirmed that Pakistan had suggested a few parameters, and was willing to consult on these with any interested delegation, but at this late stage he did not like to accept the suggestion of involving another participant.

The representative of Canada wanted to participate in the consultations on the terms of reference. He supported a study being undertaken that covered the full gambit of Article 9 in the TRIMs Agreement. He was open to the question of who else might make contributions to such a study.

The representative of Mexico expressed the interest of his delegation in participating in these consultations. The representative of Egypt supported the study and agreed with the terms of reference that had been mentioned. She would like to see the study conducted as soon as possible and would like to participate in any further consultations on the terms of reference.

The Chairman said there was agreement that this study should include the development dimension. The participation of the OECD was also suggested. This was not shared by some Members and he called on his successor to continue consultations on the specific terms of reference of this study. No one was contesting the need for a study, but there was no question that there was interest in continuing to discuss the terms of reference. It was so agreed.

IV. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER THE 1999 WAIVER FOR PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT FOR LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/304)

The Chairman reported on consultations he had had with the Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development since the last meeting regarding notifications of action taken under the 1999 waiver. Steps taken by developing countries under the 1999 Waiver on Preferential Tariff Treatment for LDCs were to be notified to the Council on Trade in Goods. On the other hand, information on any actions taken by developed countries under their GSP schemes in favour of LDCs were to be sent to the CTD under the provisions of the Enabling Clause. Recognising these differing reporting procedures, the Chairman of the CTD had proposed in November 2000 that any market access measures taken specifically in favour of the least-developed countries, whether under the Enabling Clause and notified to the CTD or the 1999 waiver and notified to the CTG be referred for advice by either body to the CTD Sub-Committee on LDCs. The Sub-Committee would report back to the CTD or CTG, as appropriate, on its discussions. The objective was to allow for a unified consideration in one forum of measures taken in favour of the LDCs. No modification to existing notification procedures was proposed, nor would this request for advice interfere with the terms of waiver or the treaty requirements. Such an approach would not preclude the CTG from engaging in discussions of any matter in regard to the waiver.

He proposed to the CTG the above method for handling notifications made under the waiver and the Council so agreed. G/C/M/47 Page 6

V. REQUEST FOR A WTO WAIVER – NEW ACP-EC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (G/C/W/187, G/C/W/187/ADD.2 AND G/C/W/204)

The Chairman drew Members' attention to document G/C/W/254 from the EC on its banana régime and requested the EC to introduce this document.

The representative of the European Communities said that he believed the situation was now clear. After the publication on 2 February 2001 of the latest EU Council regulation on the banana régime which contained the new preferences for the ACP countries, all the elements requested by the countries who had so far resisted or blocked the examination of the waiver request in the WTO were now available in all three WTO languages. The new banana régime was notified earlier this week to the Dispute Settlement Body and was available also as a working document for the Council for Trade in Goods. There was no reason why the work of examination should not begin with immediate effect. When considering this request, apart from bananas and in a number of other but relatively small number of cases, essentially the trading régime which the EC was proposing, and which would be covered by the request for a waiver was essentially the same as the existing one. He appealed to delegations to engage with his delegation in the examination of the request.

The representative of Paraguay expressed once again Paraguay's opposition to this waiver request because it was both discriminatory and inconsistent with WTO rules and principles. It was discriminatory because it granted international trade facilities to 71 countries, abolishing customs duties and other charges in many areas and offering generous quotas for other products, while denying both of these benefits to a smaller number of developing countries, some 38 by his calculation, which constituted an inversion of the multilateral/regional equation. The WTO accepted waivers for small groups which, for special reasons, shared common trade, but when most developing countries were afforded these advantages and a small group was denied them, this constituted discrimination.

He welcomed the European Union's decision to liberalize trade for developing countries, but this had to be extended to all of them. It must not be confined to a majority, while denying the same privileges to a minority of developing countries, for which this had a highly damaging impact since their products failed to remain competitive in the liberalized context afforded to the other developing countries. This was neither fair nor equitable. Whereas the WTO was created with a view to achieving trade liberalization and multilateralism, the objective of the waiver request was contrary to this principle and contradicted the European Union's own main spokesman on trade, Pascal Lamy, who claimed to defend multilateralism in international trade. This waiver, for historical reasons, sought to establish a privilege for one group of developing countries, while damaging another group, including countries such as Paraguay, which had a lower income per capita than 15 of the ACP countries. This privilege liberalized products which were clearly Paraguayan, such as maté (llex Paraguayensis), classified in the preferential tariff regime nomenclature in chapter 9 "coffee, tea, maté and spices", for ACP countries and not for the country in which it was originally produced. That was the irony of this privilege.

He did not accept the idea that this was no more than a continuation of the Lomé Conventions. Nevertheless, the first of the Lomé Conventions was itself damaging to Paraguay, in that it barred access to EU markets for several Paraguayan products, which could not be competitive because of the duties payable or the lack of quotas. If a new Convention was accepted when the WTO was established, taking it up to the year 2000, the objective was to abolish these facilities and not, as the EU suggested, to continue extending them, while promoting multilateralism. Although he sympathized with the ACP countries, the discrimination that Paraguay and many other developing countries suffered had forced him to oppose this waiver request.

Agriculture was of fundamental importance to Paraguay in economic and social terms. Fifty per cent of the population lived in rural areas and was employed in agriculture, producing 27 per cent G/C/M/47 Page 7 of the gross domestic product and 85 per cent of foreign exchange through exports. Agriculture also constituted the basis of Paraguay's industries by providing raw materials. According to the latest statistics, for 1998, there were 310,000 agricultural production units in Paraguay, with an area of 33,500,000 hectares under cultivation. This demonstrated the importance of precisely those agricultural products which could no longer be competitive due to the privileges granted to ACP countries. He believed that historical grounds could not be applied to developing countries, for they constituted a status quo which prevented countries in a vigorous stage of development from entering international markets, either because access to developed countries was denied or because these discriminatory agreements were created "for historical reasons" which eliminated competition from international trade. Unlike the generosity it showed in the field of technical cooperation, the European Union did not show the necessary solidarity and political sensitivity in the trade arena to open its markets to developing countries such as Paraguay. Paraguay was seeking to consolidate its democracy (a fundamental political principle, advocated by the European Union) and consequently, needed to expand foreign trade, especially in agriculture. He hoped that the EU and the ACP countries would be able to understand Paraguay's point of view.

The representative of Panama said the CTG had been told by the EU representative that in his view Members had all the different elements needed to initiate consideration of the waiver request made by the ACP countries and the EU. There were still however procedural difficulties that stood in the way. The European Commission had still not presented a clear picture of the banana régime which it intended to apply, nor of the preferences which would be granted to ACP countries. The régime had a Council regulation and also a Commission regulation which still needed to be published. It was necessary to have all elements of the régime to see which preferences would be given to the ACP countries. Therefore he did not agree with the appreciation made by the representative of the EU and believed there were still difficulties which prevent the CTG from considering the régime. The discussion process on various aspects of the previous Lomé régime had been lengthy, and the EU had time to establish a banana régime which was WTO compatible, but instead of doing this, and despite the objections raised by Panama and other countries, the EU had sought solutions which were not compatible with their obligations and with the recommendations and rulings of different panels and the Appellate Body. Panama was not in a position to give its support to a waiver extension. It was concerned at the possibility that this waiver mechanism could be used to sidestep obligations stemming from recommendations and rulings put out by panels and the appellate body which had been achieved at great cost drawing on the scarce resources of developing countries. In his view there were procedural problems that prevented the CTG from considering this request and he wanted to wait until it was clear which were the preferences which would be granted to the ACP countries.

The representative of Costa Rica said that as on previous occasions his delegation believed that not all information had been put before the CTG, which would enable it to consider the request. He had taken note of the explanations given by the EC, in particular the reference to the fact that certain countries might have blocked the consideration of this issue. What had occurred so far was far from a blockage of any sort. Document G/C/W/254 contained the EC's regulation which was an integral part of the régime. Until the CTG had the information to have a full picture of what the preferences were made up of, he could not initiate any consideration of the case. To comply with the rulings of the panels and the Appellate Body would be the solution which he had constantly advocated to the EU. To force through a waiver was something which went against the spirit of the dispute settlement system and very clearly went against the purpose of the waiver system. The EU on this occasion wished to extend the conflict, not only to the dispute settlement system, but also to the rules which governed waivers in the WTO. Returning to the procedural aspects, he awaited all the necessary information to be supplied by the EU, so that the CTG could start considering the request for a waiver.

The representative of Guatemala gave full support to the points made by Panama and Costa Rica. Specifically, the EC had to comply with paragraph 1 of the Understanding in Respect of G/C/M/47 Page 8

Waivers of Obligations under the GATT 1994. His delegation considered that on this occasion there had been no compliance with paragraph 1 of that text, since the request had not met the different requirements set out there. Guatemala could not begin to study or consider the request unless the CTG had before it all the different elements involved, including the Commission's implementing regulation.

The representative of Hungary recalled the first discussion on this subject on 5 April 2000. No delegation per se objected to granting a waiver; the main problem was whether all information was available or not; as there were some delegations who said that they would like to have clear information on the preferences accorded to bananas. The CTG was informed that this information was available and there was the necessary documentation to that effect. The review of the waiver request had to begin without delay in accordance with Article IX.3(b) of the WTO Agreement. To block the examination of a waiver request might be dangerous for the future of the whole system and should be avoided. One could like or dislike the banana régime, but this should not hinder the review of the waiver request. The representative of the Czech Republic agreed with the position expressed by Hungary. All elements were on the table which should allow work to start on the review of this request for a waiver, based on existing WTO rules and established practice.

The representative of the Philippines recalled the document circulated last year containing the proposed draft decision on the waiver request in which the EC cited the 1956 GATT decision on the requirement for the parties requesting a waiver to engage in consultations with other contracting parties whose trade concerns might be adversely affected. He was looking forward to engaging the EC in such consultations.

The representative of Honduras referred to a subject of systemic importance which was the status of documentation which did not enable Members to know what measures were being proposed to be adopted by the EU on the subject of bananas. This was a requirement under paragraph 1 of the Understanding in Respect of Waivers of Obligations under the GATT 1994. The EC Council regulation that had been referred contained insufficient elements for Members to know the measures which the requesting Member wished to adopt. In particular the Commission's implementing regulations was missing. It seemed to him that the measures in question were not WTO-compatible and not directed to ending the discrimination which predominated at present. Though it was true that exemptions were by their nature designed to adapt solutions to certain special situations, it was also true that these solutions had to be within the framework of the general spirit regulating the agreements of the WTO. This meant that his delegation could not accede to examining the request for this waiver. He repeated to all ACP partners that Honduras was not opposed in principle to waivers for developing countries to help them improve conditions of trade. When the documentary requirements were fully met his delegation would be pleased to examine the request for such a waiver.

The representative of Colombia said that the EC had still not complied with the essential requirement to present to the Council the full measures on the banana régime. For this reason, he shared the comments of Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Honduras.

The representative of Jamaica said that it had been almost one year since the question of a waiver for the trade provisions of the EU-ACP partnership agreement was first brought before this body. The historical record indicated that the request for a waiver was tabled on 5 April 2000, the relevant draft decision was circulated on 14 April 2000, and the full text of the agreement, was circulated on 18 April 2000. The CTG had made no progress. In the process, it had set an unhealthy precedent for the consideration of waiver requests which every Member had the right to make and to have considered under the procedures agreed by all Members in the Marrakesh Agreements. There were legal provisions for the assessment of the impact of any waiver that was granted on any Member and all Members were well aware of those provisions. The ACP countries had always held a view that the existing documentation on the table was a sufficient basis for the CTG to proceed with a G/C/M/47 Page 9 substantive consideration of the waiver request. Many of the positions heard today raised issues which should be taken up during consideration of the request. The banana issue had been raised most prominently and he noted that the ACP countries accounted for 3% of world trade in this product. The Ambassador of Paraguay had raised the question of discrimination and inconsistency with the principles of the WTO, and asked for the understanding of the ACP countries. There was a legal process for waivers in the WTO and for taking into account the impact of any waiver on any country. Paraguay was a member of a preferential regional trading arrangement which accounted for more than twice the share of world trade of the 71 ACP countries referred to and certainly of the 55 ACP countries that were WTO Members.

The representative of Zimbabwe thought that the representative of Hungary had made a reasonable point. When he heard interventions from Paraguay and other countries it appeared as if the CTG was already in the process of examining the request for the waiver. If they had that information and they objected to the granting of the waiver, the process of examination should start. Members of the ACP had the right for the request to be put before the CTG and if that request was not agreeable to Members, they had the right to object in the examination of that request. By saying that the information available was not sufficient, some Members wanted to delay the examination of the request, for other purposes rather than the waiver itself.

The representative of Brazil said that his capital was focusing on some specific products whose situation he would like to discuss with the EC as soon as the Members of this Council decided that the examination of the request could start.

The representative of the United States was taken by surprise that some documents were submitted to the CTG concerning the banana régime on the day of the meeting. Her delegation was not prepared today to consider commencing the examination on the basis of the documentation which she had not seen but was prepared to continue efforts to see a swift commencement of the examination at the appropriate time. This item should remain on the agenda so that by the next meeting an examination could commence. Her delegation could not accept any situation that would undermine any litigation that the US had been involved in regarding the matter of bananas.

The representative of Barbados endorsed the statement made by Jamaica that all of the elements necessary for the start of the examination of the waiver request were in place. She reiterated the call for the substantive examination of the waiver request to begin and stressed the importance for developing countries, especially the smallest and weakest, for preferential access for the markets of developed countries.

The representative of Cuba said that Cuba participated as an observer in signing the Cotonou Agreement in Benin in June 2000 and considered this agreement a positive step in international relations because it was directed towards supporting and fostering the economic and social development of ACP countries which were among the poorest of the world. His delegation considered that the proposals and objectives of this agreement were in line with the principles of the WTO. He deplored that developing countries were divided for reasons of specific interests and made an appeal for solidarity between developing countries in favour of ACP countries. Some of the expressions had been quite frank today on the discriminatory nature of the Agreement. There were plurilateral trade agreements where, for various reasons, whether geographic, political or historical in nature, benefits were generated for a group of developing countries and some of these agreements had now been adopted and approved without difficulty, and others were currently being negotiated. He made an appeal for there to be greater flexibility and more understanding for this request.

The representative of Ecuador stated that document G/C/W/254 dated 12 March 2001 was not distributed by the Secretariat together with the convening note for this meeting, as required by the procedures for meetings of the council. Therefore, he could not take a decision on this agenda item at G/C/M/47 Page 10 this time. The notification presented by the EC and circulated today demonstrated two things: first, there was no blockage by WTO Member countries to analyse a waiver request, but rather there was a lateness on the part of the EC in complying with its obligations under the disciplines of the WTO. Secondly, it also demonstrated that his delegation had every reason, having notified other members of the Organization, that the documents delivered one year ago, in March 2000, by the EC, were incomplete. The dangerous precedent mentioned by the representative of Hungary was that of obtaining a waiver without having distributed information to Members that would enable them to consider its implications. Despite efforts made by the EC to comply with the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Understanding on waivers under the GATT 1994, the documents were still incomplete and therefore did not permit Members to begin examining the request. The Community banana régime, was still not defined completely, and this did not enable Members to determine the scope of the preference for which the waiver was requested. Referring to comments made by Jamaica related to the participation in world trade of bananas by some of the ACP countries when compared to the participation of Ecuador, he said that the ACP countries represented 3% of world trade and Ecuador had a share of 36%. The participation of ACP countries in world banana trade within the EU represented 25%, whereas the participation of Ecuador, because of the discriminatory banana régime, represented barely 18% of the volume of banana imports of the EC. Quoting the text of a statement made by Jamaica in another body of this Organization, he said that Jamaica did not believe that the EU proposal was consistent with its commitment under the Cotonou Agreement in ensuring the continued viability of ACP banana export industries and a continuing outlet for their bananas on the Community market.

The representative of Mauritius said that Members should be aware that the historical dimension of ACP trade was an important factor in the course of economic and social development. Jamaica had clearly explained the serious reasons why the CTG could not procrastinate anymore and he appealed for urgently commencing work on the review of the waiver. It was about a year since Members first took cognizance of the EC initiative for the request for the waiver. With the latest documents from the EC, he trusted that Members were now past the stage of procedural imbroglio and could set themselves to the task of substantive review of the request. Systemic problems at the WTO did not arise sheerly out of substantive issues: Members could not defend the system when they did not allow it the chance to come under examination. Jamaica had drawn attention to the legal disposition governing assessment of waiver operations. All shared a collective responsibility in permitting the process to function, which had been in suspense far too long. It was time to contribute towards the systemic balance by lifting the checks on the procedures and enabling Members to look together into the real substance of the request. He appreciated the goodwill expressed by a number of Members who were willing to engage in consultations.

The representative of St. Lucia was disappointed by the lack of recognition by some Members of the importance of preferences to ACP states. The position of ACP states in comparison to the rest of the world was deteriorating. When Members began deliberations on whether or not to begin the examination of the ACP waiver request, there were 39 ACP LDCs; now there were 41, making it the only group that was moving backwards. The history of the past 25 years had proven that preferences to ACP countries had not distorted world trade; all they had done was slowed down their marginalization. In the 25 years of Lomé benefits ACP share of world trade had actually declined. ACP countries did not have the goods to sell competitively and without the preferences would have been worse off. The gap continued to widen between ACP states and other countries. Using bananas as an example, over the past 10 years Ecuador's share of the EC market had doubled whilst that of the Windward Islands had been halved. The EC market was the only market where Windward Islands were able to sell any supplies, because of the preferential arrangements. The Partnership Agreement was the product of long and difficult negotiations between the ACP and the EC. Some Members were seeking to preclude ACP states from benefitting from concessions which had been negotiated. It would be ironic if the fate of 77 ACP countries, 55 of which were WTO Members, was placed at risk because of other developing countries in the name of non-discrimination. G/C/M/47 Page 11

The representative of the European Communities said that on further examination, some of the statements made this morning, when read in the cold light of reason, might not stand close scrutiny and some delegations might even wish to reformulate some of the observations made. There was no valid reason under the WTO Agreement why this request should not be examined in accordance with the provisions of Article IX(3)b. He was arguing only that Members begin the examination of this waiver request and he had heard a number of delegations say that they refused to do so. One delegation had said that his delegation was seeking, through the acceptance of the ACP waiver, to force through further illegalities in the new banana régime. Even if it were true, it seemed that the correct course open to that delegation would be the dispute settlement machinery. That reasoning could not be used in order to pre-empt the proper application of Article IX(3)b, which had been frustrated for over 12 months. He could not allow that situation to prevail. Waivers were serious matters which involved a departure from the normal rules, and they had to be examined closely. He was surprised that some delegations themselves were surprised that a notification was made to the CTG dated 12 March. The regulation was published in all three WTO languages on 2 February 2001 and before that and afterwards, it had been the subject of consultation between his delegation and other delegations across the spectrum of supplying countries, and countries with an interest. He had made the text available this week, thinking it was timely to do so; perhaps this should have been done slightly earlier, but no delegation in this room could be unaware of the content of the regulation of the European Council. The timing could have been improved, but in reality the content was known, and sufficiently in advance and discussed at some length with many of the delegations who had spoken today. There was no valid reason under the WTO Agreement why the examination of this request for a waiver should not now proceed. Also, the potential beneficiary countries themselves, including some of the world's poorest countries, but also other delegations who had interest in other products and product areas and sectors than bananas, had the right, through the examination of this waiver request, for their views to be heard.

The representative of Jamaica referred to comments by Ecuador that Jamaica believed that the banana régime, notified by the EC, and known as a first come, first served régime, would have a deleterious effect on the Jamaican banana industry. CARICOM Ministers had expressed similar sentiments regarding the likely impact on the region and the ACP Ministers meeting in Brussels last December held that an FC-FS system could result in the rapid destruction of the ACP banana industry because it would deprive ACP producers and exporters of security of access to the EU market. The sufficiency or insufficiency of data of documentation before the Council could not be determined by whether one liked or did not like the documentation. ACP countries took the view that the procedural requirements were met several months ago. He saw no reason for the examination not to proceed, given the provisions set out in Marrakesh Agreement, including the provisions for Members to raise and have issues relating to their interests taken into account and addressed as a part of the process.

The representative of the United States wished to see for purposes of precedent the commencement as soon as possible of the examination of this waiver request. She was concerned that she was not aware until today that the EC intended to submit the régime in the CTG and therefore was not prepared to opine specifically on whether the US could support at this time the commencement of the examination in light of the intended régime. She was hopeful that by the next CTG meeting Members could proceed with the examination. The US had its own waivers that might be coming to this body soon.

The representative of Ecuador noted that St. Lucia had said that Ecuador had over the last ten years been increasing its banana exports to the European market. He wished to point out that this growth had been in spite of the illegality of the banana régime of the EU established by several panels over the last few years. The question is what this growth would have been without these illegalities. Regarding the question from Jamaica as to why Ecuador quoted the text of Jamaica's declaration of 1 February in the DSB, he said it was to demonstrate that at least one ACP country had serious doubts G/C/M/47 Page 12 about the new banana régime. Jamaica also mentioned that the information submitted to the Council at the time when the request was presented 11 months ago was sufficient and what was submitted on 12 March 2001 by the EU was not a determinant factor. On the contrary, it was important enough to enable Members to take into account the scope of the preferences to be received under the waiver. If something had to be notified in this Council, it had to be done in time. Just because there was a discussion of the banana régime in other fora, Members could not consider that this discussion was sufficient and covered the requirements which needed to be addressed and complied with under the rules of the CTG regarding the analysis of a waiver.

The representative of Jamaica said the question of whether Jamaica held doubts about the consistency of the proposed régime with the Cotonou Agreement was a separate issue from the examination and granting of a waiver under the provisions of the WTO.

The Chairman recalled that the CTG had been confronted with difficulties of procedure since the beginning of this exercise, because of the position of some delegations as to the insufficient information to enable them to start the examination, while other delegations thought that the examination could take place on the basis of the material presented. Members had spent months in consultations trying to seek a way forward. Initially a proposal was made by the Chairman to exclude for the moment the banana regime and to start the examination on other aspects of the request. Although the CTG was close to an agreement, there was finally no consensus. With the presentation from the EC today, it could have been thought that there was sufficient information to move forward. During this examination Members could have incorporated other important aspects on the different issues which today would not appear to be covered in the information submitted. In this phase of the examination, Members could have also considered some other substantive aspects raised during the discussions, such as the impact that preferential measures would have on third countries. However, a series of new procedural difficulties had emerged in today’s meeting. Some of them connected with lack of knowledge before this meeting of the presentation of the regime of the EC and hence with the non-compliance with the necessary timeframe that would allow a decision to be taken today, although the representative of the EC had shown flexibility in this area. Another concern related to the need for further information by the EC’s Commission which certain delegations consider fundamental regarding the banana regime before they could give their support to this examination being started. Also a number of substantive issues regarding the waiver itself had been raised during the debate. On the other hand, he felt that many delegations have conveyed a sense of urgency in dealing with this matter. All these elements indicated that there was a need to keep this issue open until the next meeting in April. A future effort should be made through additional consultations under the guidance of the next Chairman so that by the next meeting Members could take a decision regarding the start of the examination. This seemed the most feasible approach and he submitted it to Members for their consideration.

In the absence of objections, the CTG agreed to proceed in this way.

VI. FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

The Chairman drew Members' attention to the 13 agreements listed under this item that had been notified under Article XXIV. The texts of the Agreements had been circulated in the documents listed.

As there were no requests for the floor, he proposed that the Council submit the following agreements to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements to carry out the examination of these agreements – Trade Development and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and South Africa (WT/REG113/N/1, WT/REG113/1); Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and Armenia (WT/REG114/N/1, WT/REG114/1, WT/REG114/1/Corr.1 (English only)); G/C/M/47 Page 13

Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (WT/REG115/N/1, WT/REG/115/1); Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and Latvia (WT/REG116/N/1, WT/REG116/1); Free Trade Area between the EFTA States and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (WT/REG117/N/1, WT/REG/117/1); Free Trade Agreement between Georgia and the Russian Federation (WT/REG118/N/1, WT/REG118/1); Free Trade Agreement between Georgia and Armenia (WT/REG119/N/1, WT/REG119/1); Free Trade Agreement between Georgia and Azerbaijan (WT/REG120/N/1, WT/REG120/1); Free Trade Agreement between Georgia and Ukraine (WT/REG121/N/1, WT/REG121/1); Free Trade Agreement between Georgia and Turkmenistan (WT/REG122/N/1, WT/REG122/1); Free Trade Agreement between Georgia and Kazakhstan (WT/REG123/N/1, WT/REG123/1); Free Trade Agreement between Israel and Mexico (WT/REG124/N/1, WT/REG124/1); Free Trade Agreement between Chile and Mexico (WT/REG125/N/1, WT/REG125/1) - in accordance with the following terms of reference:

"to examine, in light of the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994, the Free Trade Agreements just referred to and to submit a report to the Council for Trade in Goods". It was understood that the understanding read out by the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods under item 7 of the agenda of the meeting of Council for Trade in Goods on 20 February 1995, as contained in document WT/REG31/1, will apply mutatis mutandis to the examination of the agreements. It was also understood that, during the examination, due account would be taken of the intrinsic differences between customs unions and free-trade areas.

The Council so agreed.

VII. REQUEST BY INDIA, PAKISTAN AND HONG KONG, CHINA: CTG'S FUNCTIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV OF THE MARRAKESH AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION – TRANSPARENCY REGARDING NEW RESTRICTIONS ON TEXTILES AND CLOTHING PRODUCTS COMMENTED UPON BY THE TEXTILES MONITORING BODY

The Chairman said at its meeting on 15 November 2000 the CTG considered, inter alia, the report of the Textiles Monitoring Body for 2000. In this context, a discussion took place among some Members regarding the bilateral restraint agreed between the US and Turkey on Turkey’s exports of cotton and man-made fibre underwear to the US. The CTG took note of the various statements made and agreed that the Chairman would convene informal consultations with the Members who had spoken, in an attempt to clarify the contents and scope of additional consultations on this particular item.

Such consultations took place on 15 February and were not successful in clarifying the contents and scope of additional consultations. The Chairman understood that Item 7 had been included in today’s Agenda at the request of India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, China as a consequence of the 15 February consultations.

The representative of Hong Kong, China said his delegation together with the delegations of India and Pakistan had requested this agenda item to be discussed because of a serious systemic concern about certain new restraints on textiles and clothing products being implemented by certain Members. The new restraint was, after the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB)'s examination, clearly inconsistent with the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). He was even more concerned with the difficulty that the TMB encountered during the examination process – where this body, mandated by the ATC to monitor the faithful implementation of the ATC, was refused essential information from the two parties concerned. He believed that this Council had a responsibility for overseeing the functioning of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). At the Council meeting on 15 November 2000, in the G/C/M/47 Page 14 context of discussing the TMB's report for the year 2000 (G/L/398), Hong Kong, China raised the issue of a new restraint introduced by the US on imports of category 352/652 products (i.e. cotton and man- made fibre underwear) from Turkey for the period 1 June 1998 to 31 December 2002. His delegation was not disputing the contents of the report. Indeed he commended the TMB for its meticulous work in the absence of certain essential information from the Members concerned. Rather, he had expressed a serious systemic concern that a new restraint measure identified by the TMB as not in conformity with the provisions of the ATC still remained in force one year after the TMB had reached its conclusion. The Chairman had arranged an informal consultation with certain WTO Members but he was disappointed that the consultation did not produce any result because some Members were not willing to discuss any substantive issues. The new restraint was not a single isolated incident. The TMB was reviewing a new restriction introduced by a restraining country on imports of certain textile products from a developing country Member. So far, appropriate explanation or justification of such a measure had not been forthcoming.

The purpose of the ATC was to fully integrate the T&C sector into the normal rules and disciplines of the GATT. It had eliminated bilateral arrangements under the Multi-fibre Agreement and provided for strengthened multilateral disciplines, including through stricter oversight by the TMB. These new restrictions had significant systemic implications for the functioning of the ATC. If these measures were not clarified and rectified promptly, the objective of liberalization of textiles and clothing sector and its full and faithful re-integration into GATT rules would be defeated and the confidence in the multilateral trading system seriously undermined. Moreover, the effective functioning of the TMB would be hampered. Article 8.1 of the ATC provided for the TMB's supervisory role, and for examination of all measures taken under the Agreement and their conformity therewith. This supervisory role had already been impaired by the failure of the parties concerned to notify the Body properly and to provide essential information for its review. Despite the TMB's efforts, the questionable measures remained to be clarified or rectified. He believed the CTG had a crucial role to play in this respect. The TMB was an expert body and could not claim to represent the whole WTO membership. Under Article IV:5 of the Marrakesh Agreement, this Council "shall oversee the functioning of the Multilateral Trade Agreements in Annex 1A." ATC was one such agreement. Moreover, in the Singapore Ministerial Declaration, Ministers declared that "We emphasize the responsibility of the Goods Council in overseeing, in accordance with Article IV:5 of the WTO Agreement and Article 8 of the ATC, the functioning of the ATC, whose implementation is being supervised by the TMB." While this issue might be raised towards the end of this year when this Council conducted the second major review of the implementation of the ATC under Article 8 of that Agreement, the systemic concern was so serious that he saw the urgency to address it as soon as possible. To restore confidence in multilateral disciplines, he asked this Council to request all Members, particularly the restraining countries, to promptly provide detailed information to the TMB of any new restraints which has not been properly notified and to take necessary steps to bring them into conformity with the provisions of the ATC. The item should be kept on the agenda until it had been resolved.

The representative of India associated herself with the statement of Hong Kong China, adding that India was not disputing the contents of the report of the TMB on the new restrictions on textiles and clothing under question. Second, no notification was made by the parties concerned to the TMB, until a much later stage. In this context, she recalled that under an important debate on the EC’s request for a waiver for the new ACP-EC Partnership Agreement this morning, one of the parties, the United States had highlighted the importance of proper and timely notification in order for the relevant WTO body to discharge its responsibility in examining the matter. She hoped that this principle would be followed by the US in the matter of the textiles restrictions as well. Third, even after the non-notification was pointed out to the concerned parties, and despite repeated requests by the TMB to provide essential information, this information was denied for more than seven months, and per force the TMB had to examine the restraint basing its examination on the limited information available to it. Following the examination by the TMB, the TMB concluded that it had not been demonstrated that the measure was in conformity with the provisions of the ATC. Had the conclusion of the TMB G/C/M/47 Page 15 been heeded by the parties and had the new restraint, which was found to be not in conformity, been removed? That was evidently not so, unless the CTG heard to the contrary today. Full cooperation from Members was indispensable in facilitating the TMB's task, not only under Article 8.1 of the ATC, but also in order for us at a multilateral level, to ensure full and faithful implementation of the ATC by all concerned Members. The systemic aspects for the ATC, i.e. full and faithful integration of textiles and clothing products into the GATT, had already been highlighted by Hong Kong, China, and she reiterated the importance in ensuring that that sector which had been out of the normal GATT rules, should be integrated as soon as possible and should not at any time be shackled by bilateral restraints. She had raised this issue to remind the CTG that it had a function to oversee the multilateral trade agreements of which the ATC was one. The Chair's report on the informal consultations pointed out that the parties to the restraint had not taken full cognizance of this aspect of the CTG's role. She urged them to do so, to eliminate this measure, which the TMB had already concluded was not in conformity with the ATC. She also urged the CTG to keep this matter on its agenda until the issue was successfully resolved.

The representative of Pakistan said that Pakistan shared the systemic concern on the issue voiced by Hong Kong, China and India and that Pakistan had expressed these concerns in the previous meeting of the CTG and in informal consultations. Pakistan's concerns remained valid.

The representative of the United States said that if this item remained on the agenda, as a request by these delegations, and not be dealt with in a manner that would require action by this body inconsistent with the results of any other consultations concerning this issue, her delegation did not object to this item being on the agenda as drafted. The US had systemic concerns about how the process in the WTO should be conducted, and considering the fact that there were rules dealing with discussion items, she noted that notwithstanding her position on the merits of the issue, Rule 28 of the General Council Rules which applied here, in the sense that proposals should normally be introduced in writing no later than 12 hours before the commencement of the meeting, and also Rule 27 which exhorted Members to avoid repetition of a full debate on any issue that had already been fully debated in the past. She noted that there would be in 2001 a review, as provided for under Article 8 of the ATC, on the implementation of the ATC. Article 8 referenced the fact that the TMB was to prepare a comprehensive report which included its work in its oversight of the integration process and other parts of the ATC. Therefore, she considered that those delegations should have raised this in the context of rules already provided for under the ATC.

Noting that reference had been made to Article IV of the WTO Agreement, she said that under customary international law, agreements with a specific provision would have precedence over a general provision. Here, the ATC had a specific provision related to its role in overseeing the implementation of the ATC. Notwithstanding the fact that the WTO Agreement included in Article IV the oversight provided of the TMB in the context of the ATC as an Annex Ia Agreement, there was also a specific provision in Article 8 of the ATC dealing with the CTG's role in overseeing the implementation of the ATC. The US did not support the premise or context for the request, nor the request. She believed that the measure as notified was consistent with the ATC and that there were grounds under the ATC for such a measure. She contended that if the item came up again she considered the discussion to have been exhausted. With respect to the second measure referenced by Hong Kong, China, she noted that the particular mutually agreed understanding involved a dispute under Article 5 of the ATC, which involved trans-shipment. Article 5 of the ATC, in addition to providing the elasticity required for Members to reach mutually satisfactory solutions in any way that they saw fit, also provided for a specific introduction of a new restraint in accordance with those terms. She hoped that the passing reference to the second restraint did not require the US to engage in a more in-depth legal analysis.

The representative of India had stated that she did not agree with the United States on at least two of her assertions. First, under the Rules of Procedure, it is open to any Member to propose an item on the agenda. Rule 28 dealt with proposals and amendments to proposals, while Rule 27 dealt with G/C/M/47 Page 16 the need to avoid repetition of a full debate. In the current matter, neither of these rules was being contravened by India, Hong Kong China and Pakistan who had raised specific concerns. As had already been stated by Hong Kong China, a serious systemic concern had arisen out of the deliberations of the TMB, which had been raised by some Members in the CTG for the first time. India was not opening the debate on the conformity of the measure, but to highlight in the CTG, which was the relevant WTO body with full Membership for the consideration of textiles and clothing issues, its systemic concerns. Further, since no substantive discussion had taken place on it, it could not be said that a full debate had already taken place on the issue. Second, the US had merely notified to the TMB that it had introduced the measure "pursuant to a provision" of the ATC, which did not require notification. It would be useful for the CTG to hear which provision this is, and to hear the intentions of the parties with respect to a measure that the TMB has already found not to be in conformity with the ATC.

The representative of the United States reiterated that she considered that the item had been fully discussed and if raised again the delegations would respect Rules 27 and 28.

The representative of Brazil said the much-expected normalisation of trade in textiles in 2005 was a positive result of the Uruguay Round, especially in regard to developing countries. It represented a correction of an unfair situation that dated back many years. Until 2005, this transition would be monitored by the TMB and it would be essential that that body be granted the elements it needed to perform this task. He shared the concerns of India, Hong Kong, China and Pakistan as to the need for enhanced transparency in notifications in the textiles area.

The representative of Turkey shared the views of the US on the subject of the trade agreement between Turkey and the US on certain textile products. This issue should be taken into consideration under Article 8 of the ATC Agreement. This agreement was jointly submitted to the TMB and it was in conformity with the Textile and Clothing Agreement of the WTO.

The representative of the EC said at the heart of this matter was Article 8.6 of the ATC, where there were provisions in case the examinations at the request of a Member did not lead to a satisfactory result. These pointed at the review and not at the individual case-by-case examination of the CTG. He agreed with those who saw Article 8.11 where the oversight of the implementation of the agreement was meant, would be the more appropriate course to address this matter.

The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of all interventions. He said that on the request of several delegations, this issue would be kept on the agenda of the next meeting as a request from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, China.

The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to proceed in the manner suggested by the Chairman.

VIII. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS FOR SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE COUNCIL

The Chairman said that guidelines for the appointment of officers to WTO bodies contained in document WT/L/31 and approved by the General Council on 31 January 1995 provide that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods conduct consultations on the appointment of the Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods. He had carried out consultations and was in a position to propose to this Council an agreed slate of names for the Chairs of the subsidiary bodies as follows:

Committee on Agriculture: Chairman: Amb. Apiradi Tantraporn (Thailand), Vice-Chairman: Mr. Yoichi Suzuki (Japan); Committee on Anti-Dumping: Mrs. Sahar Hosni Abdelaziz (Egypt); Committee on Customs Valuation: Mr. K. Weerasinghe (Sri Lanka); Committee on Import G/C/M/47 Page 17

Licensing: Ms. Simone Rudder (Barbados); Committee on Market Access: Mr. Y. Shiran (Israel); Committee on Rules of Origin: Mr. Ho Young Ahn (Korea); Committee on Safeguards: Mr. Martin Pospisil (Czech Republic); Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Mr. William Ehlers (Uruguay); Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: Mr. Remo Moretta (Australia); Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade: Mr. Joshua Phoho (Lesotho); Committee on Trade- Related Investment Measures: Mr. Paul Bennett (Ireland); Working Party on State Trading Enterprises: Ms. Maija Manika (Latvia).

The Council agreed with the nominations read out. The Chairman said that while all the other subsidiary bodies of the Council had provisions in their respective Agreement or rules of procedure requiring them to elect Chairpersons, Working Parties did not have any procedural rules on electing Chairpersons. As a result, in the case of the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises, he proposed that the Council appoint the nominated Chairperson. In the case of all the other subsidiary bodies, he proposed that the Council take note of his proposals.

It was so agreed.

It was also agreed that on the question of Vice-Chairpersons, it would be for the subsidiary bodies to decide if they needed a Vice-Chairperson in cases where the option exists under the Agreement or rules of procedure and for the respective Chairperson to hold the necessary consultations. He took the opportunity to warmly thank the outgoing Chairpersons of the various subsidiary bodies of the Goods Council for their excellent performance during the year 2000.

IX. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE CTG

The Chairman said that the Chairman of the General Council had carried out consultations on a slate of names for Chairpersons to the different WTO standing bodies in accordance with the established guidelines for appointment of officers. These proposed nominations were approved by the General Council at its meeting in February 2001. The Council for Trade in Goods elected H.E. Ambassador Major of Hungary as Chairperson of this body by acclamation.

X. OTHER BUSINESS

The Chairman proposed that the next meeting of the Council to take place on 18 April 2001. The agenda would close on Friday, 6 April 2001.

______