Goods Council agrees on chairpersons of subsidiary bodies

The new chairpersons are:

Committee on Agriculture: Mr. Christian Häberli (Switzerland)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices: Mrs. Victoria Campeanu (Romania)
Committee on Customs Valuation: Ms. Diana Reaich (New Zealand)
Committee on Import Licensing: Mr. Evelio Alvarado Romero (Guatemala)
Committee on Market Access: Dr. Mohammad Saeed (Pakistan)
Committee on Rules of Origin: Ms. Vera Thorstensen (Brazil)
Committee on Safeguards: Mr. Seung-ho Kim (Korea)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Mr. Juan Antonio Dorantes Sánchez (Mexico)
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: Mr. Keiya Iida (Japan)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade: Mr. Margers Krams (Latvia)
Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures: Mr. Alexis Massot (France)
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises: Mr. Benjamin Katjipuka (Namibia)
ITA Committee: Mr. Martin Pospisil (Czech Republic)
  

The Council elected by acclamation Ambassador Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria) as its new chairman. Amb. Agah and many delegations paid tribute to the leadership of the outgoing chairman, Ambassador Vesa Tapani Himanen (Finland), during the past year.

On textiles, Turkey, stressing it was not targeting any country, tabled terms of reference for a work programme it has proposed that the Council undertake in the textiles and clothing sector. It stressed that millions of people in the sector all over the world were losing jobs, and that many members, especially the LDCs, are being affected by falling textile exports. A number of delegations expressed support for Turkey's proposal.

China welcomed what it saw as new flexibility from Turkey but again objected to the proposed work programme. It reiterated its systemic concern that the textiles should not be treated differently from other sectors. Some delegations shared China's concern about again treating textiles as a special sector.

The Council agreed to revert to this item at a future meeting.

The United States reiterated its request a waiver for its African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the extension of waivers for its two other trade preference programmes: the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBRERA) and the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA). The Chairman noted that after consultations, he had tabled draft decisions on the US request for consideration of members.

China said that after careful study of US answers to its questions about these schemes, it had concluded that they benefit US producers of yarns and fabrics. It proposed adding to the waiver decisions an assurance that the US will modify the rules of origin requirements of these schemes to allow other countries to supply yarns and fabrics to the beneficiary countries.

Many beneficiaries underlined the economic importance of these US programmes and urged the immediate approval of the waivers. They included Benin (on behalf of the African Group), Ecuador, Lesotho, Uganda, Nigeria, Senegal, Peru, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Bolivia, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Mauritius, Colombia, Swaziland, Nicaragua, Barbados, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Kenya, Côte d'Ivoire and Panama.

Brazil, Korea, Sri Lanka and India shared China's concerns but would not block consensus for the approval of the US request. Pakistan supported China's proposal. Paraguay rejected the waiver decisions. It said it has been discriminated against by these programmes, and called for compensation.

The US said that it could not agree to China's proposal as the provision questioned by China and other members was set in US law. It pledged to consult with any member regarding these programmes, as provided for in the draft waiver decisions.

The Chairman urged members with concerns on these waiver request to discuss them directly with the US. He added that he would inform his successor of what he saw as a clear need for further consultations on this agenda item.

On bananas, the European Communities suggested that the Council revert to its request for the extension of the waiver for the tariff rate quota for bananas of ACP (Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific) origin after the completion of the monitoring and review process on its new banana regime.

Ecuador, Honduras, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama and Nicaragua expressed concern about the EC' request, stressing that in their view, this scheme was inconsistent with the most-favoured-nation principle.

Under a separate agenda item, Colombia expressed serious concern over what it said was substantial damage to its banana exports to the 10 new EU states after the EU enlargement. It expressed deep regret over the way in which the EC had failed to engage with Colombia on this issue. It said that if by 1 July 2006 the EC still has not given compensation, Colombia will withdraw concessions. Honduras, Panama, Ecuador and Nicaragua shared Colombia's concerns.

The EC said it would immediately forward Colombia's concerns to Brussels.

On other matters, the Council agreed to forward the following to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements: the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Nicaragua; the Closer Economic Partnership Agreement between Thailand and New Zealand: and the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Morocco.

Regarding the review of the operation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, Brazil reiterated a joint proposal with India for a WTO Secretariat study on TRIMs, pointing to two positive developments in Hong Kong in this area: the mandate (paragraph 39) for the DG to consult further on implementation issues; and granting additional flexibility on TRIMs to LDCs. It said that these two developments showed that the existing Agreement was inadequate to deal with the needs of developing countries. Argentina, India and China supported the proposal.

The Chairman noted that the positions on this item were still the same. The Council agreed to revert to this item at a future meeting.

Under “Other Business”, Pakistan announced it was withdrawing its request, submitted in 2003, for a waiver on its TRIMs measures. It said that with economic difficulty, it had been able to delete some 85 schemes, and that it intended to remove the remaining 16 TRIMs in the automobile sector.