Delegations
will recall that at our meeting on 27 April, I reported on the
consultations that I had been holding on the various subject areas. My
assessment was that notwithstanding the considerable time and effort
dedicated to the implementation review mechanism by everyone, there
was still a considerable gap between the positions of delegations.
I stressed
the need for the injection of fresh thinking into the process, so as
to be able to fulfil the mandate conferred by the General Council in
its 3 May 2000 Decision. I underlined the importance of flexibility
and realism, and said that clinging to well-known positions would not
help advance this vitally important work. I invited delegations which
had ideas on how to move the process forward to share them with us.
Since
our last meeting, Uruguay and six other Members (Argentina, Morocco,
New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and Thailand) have taken up the
challenge and produced a paper, which has been circulated to all
delegations, with a view to contributing to the effort to find
positive solutions. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to
these seven countries for their initiative, hard work and spirit of
compromise which, no doubt, called for considerable effort in terms of
their own national positions.
As
delegations are aware, the G-7 paper is divided into four parts,
namely (i) issues on which early agreement could be reached; (ii)
issues that have been solved, clarified, or appear relatively less
urgent; (iii) issues referred to subsidiary bodies to be taken up
again possibly in September; and (iv) other pending issues capable of
being resolved after Doha. The reactions to the G-7 paper were
generally positive, as many delegations expressed the view that it
could help narrow the differences in the positions of delegations on
several of the proposals.
Following
the initial discussion of the G-7 paper by delegations, I announced
that we were going to use it a basis for my further consultations on
the subject while bearing in mind the General Council's mandate of 3
May 2000 and the views expressed by Members at the General Council
meeting of 21 June. Subsequent to that, the Director-General and I
held a number of consultations last week to discuss Section I of
the G-7 paper which, as mentioned earlier, contains proposals on
which, in the view of the G-7 countries, it was possible to reach
"early agreement". It is important to point out that by
"early agreement", I understand that the G-7 countries meant
anytime between now and the Fourth Ministerial Conference.
Following
these consultations, and taking into account the need for us to move
as rapidly as possible to fulfil the mandate of the General Council in
its 3 May 2000 Decision, the Director-General and I circulated a
paper on Friday, 13 July building on the work done by the G-7
countries and identifying some elements on which we saw the
possibility of early agreement. I should like to reiterate, as we have
stated in the preface to this paper, that it is not to be considered
as an agreed or definitive text. It is equally not an exhaustive list
of possible elements. Most notably, it does not include proposals on
the tirets relating to anti-dumping, textiles and clothing, and TRIMs,
as consultations are continuing on these tirets. Let me also underline
that further consultations will be convened to discuss the remaining
elements in Section I, as well as Sections II, III and IV of the G-7
paper with a view to determining which additional issues could be
added to the list that we have put forward. We have already begun
these consultations. I should like to underline that we see this as a
continuing effort, bearing in mind the framework of the G-7 paper and
the General Council's decision of 3 May 2000.
I
should like to stress that we are working on the basis of the G-7
paper, and that we are not in any way excluding early decisions at any
time on any points contained in that paper, if Members are able to
agree on them. Indeed, this point was emphasized at our informal
meeting yesterday by the delegation of Norway.
That
being said, I would suggest that delegations also focus today on the
elements we have suggested which entail that issues be referred to
subsidiary bodies for their consideration and for them to report back
to the General Council before the Fourth Ministerial Conference, so
that the General Council may be able to take action on the basis of
the technical advice from these bodies. I am suggesting this for
purely practical reasons: we must allow subsidiary bodies adequate
time to carry out their work and report back to us. Let me underline
here that I am very aware of the concerns on the part of a number of
delegations regarding such referrals. I want to make it absolutely
clear that referral of issues to subsidiary bodies does not in any way
mean we are neglecting the issues or setting them aside. Any issues so
referred to subsidiary bodies at this stage will remain under the
General Council process and we will come back to them. This also does
not in anyway preclude the General Council from taking any action it
deems appropriate on these or any other issues.
Also,
in possibly forwarding these issues to the subsidiary bodies, I will
make two things clear: one, that in addition to any specific mandates
that have been provided, they should all aim, in addressing and
reporting on these issues to the General Council, to assist the
General Council to identify ways needed to resolve them and take
decisions for appropriate action in accordance with the 3 May
Decision; and two, that these reports should be submitted to the
General Council by 30 September.
Furthermore,
to help address the concerns of Members, I also intend to request the
Chairpersons of subsidiary bodies to which issues have already been
referred, to report back to the General Council by the end of
September, in sufficient time for these reports to be considered by
our next Special Session. In this regard, and for your information, I
have requested the Secretariat to prepare a paper indicating the
current status of all issues which have been referred to subsidiary
bodies. This has been circulated as Job(01)/115. This is in line with
what the Director-General and I had foreshadowed in the preface to our
paper of 13 July, regarding information on progress being made on
issues already referred to subsidiary bodies.
Let
me recall, for your information, the issues that the Director-General
and I are proposing, with your agreement, for submission to the
relevant subsidiary bodies for their consideration and reporting to
the General Council by 30 September. These are the following:
Tiret
4
The
consideration by the Market Access Committee of the proposal that a
Member should be considered as having a substantial interest in a
product when that product constitutes a significant share of its
exports.
Tiret
12
The
proposal requiring the SPS Committee to come up with concrete
guidance in relation to the negotiation and conclusion of
equivalency agreements.
Tiret
56
The
proposal directing the Customs Valuation Committee to address
Members' concerns relating to fraud in customs matters.
Tiret
65
instructing
the Subsidies Committee to examine all the relevant conditions for
determining when export credits provided by developing-country
members do not constitute export subsidies.
Tiret
68
requesting
the Subsidies Committee to consider the implementation of Article 27
of the SCM Agreement, taking into account the percentage share of
exports of individual developing-country Members' products in import
markets and in global trade.
Tiret
80
requesting
the SCM Committee to review the provisions of the SCM Agreement
regarding countervailing duty investigations.
Tiret
83
instructing
the SCM Committee to examine the threshold in Annex VII to the SCM
Agreement and to consider the issues raised by developing-country
Members in that regard.
Tiret
96
instructing
the Committee on Trade and Development to review all S & D
provisions in the WTO Agreements with a view to determining how they
could be operationalised and further enhanced.
We
have reached a critical time in the preparatory process for Doha and
it is imperative for all delegations to engage constructively and show
flexibility. My consultations have made it clear to me that all
delegations attach the highest priority to the implementation issue
and would like to see it resolved within the shortest possible time.
Having said that, I would reiterate the need for realism, given the
difficulties which some of the proposals present. An honest dialogue
is needed to move the process forward to the satisfaction of all
delegations. |
