PRINT

EU Statement at the General Council, 16-17 December 2025

19.12.2025
Geneva
EU mission to the WTO in Geneva - Press and information team

Statement Delivered by Ambassador João Aguiar Machado

2.3 Possible Deliverables to MC14 – Report by the General Council Chairperson

  • I would like first to thank the DG, Dr. Ngozi, for her report with a focus on deliverables for MC14 under the TNC, as well as the Chair of the General Council for his two reports which provide a complete picture of ongoing work and a realistic and useful list of possible deliverables to MC14. I also thank the DSB Chair Ambassador Kelly and the Facilitator for the E-Commerce work programme Ambassador Brown for their work and reports. Finally, let me thank the WTO Reform Facilitator, Ambassador Ølberg, for his report and his considerable efforts to carry out this challenging and vital task for the organisation.

  • Given the limited time available, I will focus on WTO reform – our top priority for MC14 - and thus on the report from Ambassador Olberg. I will also make a few final comments on the potential outcomes for MC14, based notably on the useful report by Ambassador Almoqbel, Chair of the GC.

  • We find the report by Ambassador Olberg to be a balanced document, as it contains a fair reflection of Members’ views and of the debate to date.

  • While we recognise that this is and will remain a member driven process, we see a huge value of having the Facilitator continuing his work in the run up to MC14 together with the Chair of the General Council. We agree with the timelines and modalities for taking this work forward as presented in the report.

  • We particularly welcome the proposal to shape a draft work plan towards WTO reform that could be discussed among all Members and ultimately endorsed by Ministers in Yaoundé. The European Union sees a ministerial endorsement of further post-MC14 work on WTO reform as the top priority for Yaoundé.

  • The report adequately identifies issues that should be part of such work programme, when it comes to governance, development and level playing field.

  • Under the Governance pillar, we recognise that the WTO struggles to deliver results and to address negotiating issues effectively. We would support a work programme that would allow us to search for new ways of working to be effective in today’s context and with a large and diverse WTO membership. This includes consensus, variable geometry (through notably the incorporation of plurilateral agreements), and explore the differentiation between procedural and substantial matters in our decision-making. Additionally, we should discuss ways of how the institutional set-up of the organisation can be improved.

  • Under the fairness track, the priority is to tackle the trade tensions that have emerged over the last few years, notably due to non-market practices and policies.  This means a full work strand on industrial policies and subsidies - focusing on industrial sectors – and level playing field issues at large, covering transparency, disciplines and remedies. As indicated in the report, we support a development conversation framed more broadly that is not equated only with flexibilities and exemptions alone. There is a need for differentiation and evidence- and needs-based approaches. In this respect, we need to keep the discussions on policy space connected to improvements of the WTO rulebook. Policy space cannot be handled in the abstract.

  • Let me also recall that any reform of the WTO will need to be underpinned by a fully functioning and effective dispute settlement system. At MC14, we think that the Ministers should send a clear signal in this respect. The EU stands ready to pick up this work and build on the progress already made whenever the conditions are ripe, after MC14.

  • We find the foundational issues (the type of WTO we want, MFN, non-discrimination, the drivers of trade imbalances…) identified in the report a crucial set of issues. They are essential to take this process forward and the EU is ready to engage on those ahead of and at MC14.

  • Looking forward to the potential outcomes for MC14, let me echo some aspects of the reporting we have heard today.

    • As regards agriculture, the EU is of the view that we should address issues of importance to all Members, where the WTO can contribute positively at the current moment. Food security aspects are certainly an area where we could work on convergence to deliver a relevant outcome at MC14.

    • The Work Programme and the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions are important contributions towards an inclusive, predictable and rules-based international digital trading environment. For the EU, agreeing by MC14 on an open-ended solution for the moratorium on custom duties is a priority.

    • On plurilaterals, the Marrakesh Agreement envisions plurilateral agreements as integral to the WTO framework, with Article X.9 providing the legal foundation. The urgency of incorporating the IFD Agreement is needed as a demonstration of the WTO’s ability to address and deliver negotiating outcomes on issues of great interest and benefit to members. The request of 128 WTO members for incorporation must, if not agreed today, be tabled for ministerial decision at MC14.

    • Regarding the E-Commerce Agreement, the EU believes it is essential for establishing a foundation for global digital trade, empowering economies, and fostering cross-border trade, demonstrating the multilateral trading system's ability to address modern challenges.

    • All of these outcomes, and WTO reform, have an important development dimension. In addition, the EU is open to specific development-related outcomes on the issues that are on the agenda of today’s meeting.

  • To conclude, Mr Chairman, let me acknowledge your approach that you have proposed to prepare a possible MC14 Ministerial Declaration. We had misgivings about this idea but hope that the conditions set by Ambassador Almoqbel will counter the risk of an acrimonious exercise that would divide the membership and would make us lose focus from our main target – a meaningful plan for WTO reform. But we should keep this idea under review, as suggested by yourself Mr Chairman, and not shy away from setting it aside if consensus cannot be reached.

  • The European Union takes note that, this year, the LDC Group has made progress in identifying LDC priorities.

  • While there is currently no consensus on the LDC proposal, there is still scope for Members to examine and address specific concerns of graduating LDCs post-MC14. The EU remains ready to engage constructively in a process-oriented outcome towards MC14.

8. For Consideration under the Mandate in paragraph 4 of WT/MIN(24)/34; WT/L/1189: WTO Smooth Transition Support Measures in Favour of Countries Graduated from the LDC Category Pursuant to paragraph 3 of WT/MIN(24)/34; WT/L/1189 – Communication from Djibouti on behalf of the LDC Group (WT/GC/W/967) – Request from the Gambia on behalf of the LDC Group

  • The European Union takes note that, this year, the LDC Group has made progress in identifying LDC priorities.

  • While there is currently no consensus on the LDC proposal, there is still scope for Members to examine and address specific concerns of graduating LDCs post-MC14. The EU remains ready to engage constructively in a process-oriented outcome towards MC14.

9. General Council Decision on Enhancing the Precise, Effective and Operational Implementation of Special and Differential Treatment Provisions of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) – Communication from the G-90 (WT/GC/W/974 – TN/C/W/92 – JOB/TN/CTD/19) – Request from South Africa

  • The EU would like to thank South Africa for making the proposal.

  • For the EU this is a sensible, operational draft decision that in our view goes in the right direction.

  • Thank you, Chair.

  • We fully align with the statement done by the Coordinator Ambassador Boza.

  • Let me go straight to the point. Many Members are asking the question: if we cannot find a solution to deliver an Agreement supported by more than three-quarters of the membership, an Agreement that does not undermine anybody’s interests and rights, but even benefits also the non-participants, then what can our the WTO still deliver?

  • This is not just a rhetorical question; I think it is an existential question.

  • The Marrakesh Agreement envisions plurilateral agreements as integral to our framework, with Article X:9 providing the legal foundation. Denying the possibility of a new plurilateral agreement would deprive Article X:9 of its purpose. The Members have a right – enshrined in Article X:9 – to request a decision by the Ministerial Conference.

  • After 8 or 9 General Council meetings, we regret that a positive decision could not be taken today. Now it is time in our view to put this matter in the hands of our Ministers.

  • We have continued the dialogue with those Members who have expressed concerns, including with India, South Africa and Türkiye. I can reassure that we have heard these concerns very clearly and carefully. While we fully respect every Members’s right to choose to stay outside this agreement, we call for an understanding of these Members to honour the development aspirations of a significant majority of the WTO membership and allow them to benefit fully from the Agreement.

  • The EU fully supports the swift incorporation of the E-commerce Agreement into the WTO rulebook.

  • The importance of this agreement is systemic in that it proves that the multilateral trading system can meet 21st century challenges.

  • The agreement will bring concrete benefits for businesses and for consumers across the globe.

  • It will also foster digital inclusiveness and help to bridge the digital divide. It will enable the integration and participation of developing economies in digital trade, including through technical assistance and capacity building efforts.

  • The EU will engage constructively with interested Members to discuss and address the questions or concerns they may have.

10. Incorporation of the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement – Draft Decision (WT/GC/W/927/Rev.4)

  • Thank you, Chair.

  • We fully align with the statement done by the Coordinator Ambassador Boza.

  • Let me go straight to the point. Many Members are asking the question: if we cannot find a solution to deliver an Agreement supported by more than three-quarters of the membership, an Agreement that does not undermine anybody’s interests and rights, but even benefits also the non-participants, then what can our the WTO still deliver?

  • This is not just a rhetorical question; I think it is an existential question.

  • The Marrakesh Agreement envisions plurilateral agreements as integral to our framework, with Article X:9 providing the legal foundation. Denying the possibility of a new plurilateral agreement would deprive Article X:9 of its purpose. The Members have a right – enshrined in Article X:9 – to request a decision by the Ministerial Conference.

  • After 8 or 9 General Council meetings, we regret that a positive decision could not be taken today. Now it is time in our view to put this matter in the hands of our Ministers.

  • We have continued the dialogue with those Members who have expressed concerns, including with India, South Africa and Türkiye. I can reassure that we have heard these concerns very clearly and carefully. While we fully respect every Members’s right to choose to stay outside this agreement, we call for an understanding of these Members to honour the development aspirations of a significant majority of the WTO membership and allow them to benefit fully from the Agreement.

11. Incorporation of the Agreement on Electronic Commerce into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement – Draft Decision (WT/GC/W/963/Rev.1)

  • The EU fully supports the swift incorporation of the E-commerce Agreement into the WTO rulebook.

  • The importance of this agreement is systemic in that it proves that the multilateral trading system can meet 21st century challenges.

  • The agreement will bring concrete benefits for businesses and for consumers across the globe.

  • It will also foster digital inclusiveness and help to bridge the digital divide. It will enable the integration and participation of developing economies in digital trade, including through technical assistance and capacity building efforts.

  • The EU will engage constructively with interested Members to discuss and address the questions or concerns they may have.

13. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairperson of the Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade and Development(CTD)

  • The European Union thanks the group of small, vulnerable economies and the Secretariat for their efforts under the small economies work programme. The European Union is engaging constructively on the revised draft ministerial decision to continue activities under the work programme, and trusts that it can be endorsed well before MC14.

  • The European Union would like to thank Mozambique on behalf of the African Group for the submission on agriculture circulated in view of MC14. We note that the submission covers several issues falling under the overall agricultural negotiations.

  • In our view it is important that the agricultural reform agenda is advanced in a holistic way. Reforming trade distorting domestic support, including finding a permanent solution to public stockholding for food security purposes are clearly priorities. Trade distorting support to cotton as well as cotton market access issues remain certainly to be addressed. At the same time, we do understand that other issues under the agricultural negotiations also remain of interest for other Members.

  • The EU remains ready to engage on these issues and considers that outcomes on agriculture at MC14 could address food security aspects which are of key importance for Members.

14. African Group Submission on Agriculture for MC14 – Communication from Mozambique on behalf of the African Group (WT/GC/W/977 – TN/AG/W/12)

  • The European Union would like to thank Mozambique on behalf of the African Group for the submission on agriculture circulated in view of MC14. We note that the submission covers several issues falling under the overall agricultural negotiations.

  • In our view it is important that the agricultural reform agenda is advanced in a holistic way. Reforming trade distorting domestic support, including finding a permanent solution to public stockholding for food security purposes are clearly priorities. Trade distorting support to cotton as well as cotton market access issues remain certainly to be addressed. At the same time, we do understand that other issues under the agricultural negotiations also remain of interest for other Members.

  • The EU remains ready to engage on these issues and considers that outcomes on agriculture at MC14 could address food security aspects which are of key importance for Members.

15. Dialogue on Sustainable Agriculture in the Multilateral Trading System – Request from Brazil 

  • The European Union has fully supported the dialogue on sustainable agriculture in the WTO.

  • The retreat organised in May and the subsequent workshops and seminars organised by various Members witnessed a common understanding of the membership on the shared global challenges, and of the urgency for action at national and multilateral level. 

  • We therefore welcome the Communication from Australia, Brazil and Switzerland and fully support the objective to have WTO Informal Deliberations on Emerging Trade and Agricultural Issues for discussion.

  • We see this dialogue as a fruitful platform to work on what can be done in line with WTO and other multilateral rules to achieve sustainable food systems.

  • It is fundamental to deliver on sustainable agriculture, and progress on agricultural negotiations as per the reform mandate within the Agreement on Agriculture; to repurpose trade distorting support; to progress on cooperation on environmental measures and sustainable standards taken by Members, and to support vulnerable low-income countries in their transition towards sustainable food systems. 

  • The EU is ready to actively engage with Members in these important debates.

18. Draft Ministerial Declaration on Reducing the Cost of Cross-Border Remittances: A Lever for Sustainable Development – Communication from Morocco (WT/GC/W/978)

  • The EU would like to thank Morocco for the draft Declaration on reducing the Cost of Remittances.

  • The EU recognises the importance and is fully committed to reducing the costs of remittances. The EU has taken action to reduce the cost of remittances from the EU to third countries the cost of sending remittances from the EU to third countries. This has essentially been supported by digitalisation and increased competition between the different service suppliers.  

  • With regard to the Ministerial declaration, we take note of it but the proposed role of the WTO in this process remains unclear.  It is unclear to us what is the role the WTO is to play on this and what is expected from the WTO? Important work is already being carried out in other international financial bodies that precisely promote competition and transparency among suppliers (two elements that have brought down costs in the EU), as well as data standardisation and interoperability of payment systems.  Overlaps should be avoided. 

19. Concerns on Incorporating the 'Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD)' into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement – Request from India For information

  • Mr. Chair, given the time constraints, I will only address a few key elements.

  • There is no consensus requirement in the Marrakesh Agreement to initiate negotiations, neither for multilateral nor plurilateral negotiations. Of course, when launching multilateral negotiations it is implicit that there is consensus since it involves the whole membership. Likewise, for plurilateral negotiations the consensus of the participating members is needed to launch them. But there is no legal requirement for consensus to launch negotiations in the Marrakech Agreement. Neither Article III:2, nor Article X:9, of the Marrakesh Agreement require a decision by consensus to initiate WTO negotiations in a plurilateral format. The Marrakesh Agreement requires consensus only for "adding" plurilateral agreements to Annex 4.

  • Secondly, the IFDA is a trade-related agreement. Investment is not foreign to the WTO. Several WTO agreements cover investment commitments and measures (GATS, TRIMs), and trade and investment are intrinsically interlinked.

  • Thirdly, the so-called “negative mandate” of 2004 General Council Decision pertains to the scope of the Doha Work Programme. It cannot be interpreted as a prohibition on WTO Members discussing all issues relating to investment and it relates to "multilateral" negotiations. The Doha Agenda for investment had a completely different scope than IFDA. The IFDA explicitly excludes market access, investment protection and Investor-State dispute settlement from its scope. But above all, the Doha Work Programme is no longer relevant, it is an agenda of the past that did not succeed. It’s over.

  • Fourthly, IFDA does not create either obligations or rights for Members that have not accepted it but its benefits would extend to all members, including non-participants. 

  • Fifthly, integrating IFDA into Annex 4 would not fragment the WTO system nor “open the floodgates”for plurilaterals. On the contrary, maintaining these agreements within the WTO framework ensures transparency and openness alongside multilateral agreements. And the consensus requirement in Art. X:9 will always be retained and plurilaterals, to be integrated into the WTO, will have to pass through the gateway of consensus. But what we are facing with IFDA is the use of consensus to permanently close the possibility of integrating plurilaterals. This is the best example of consensus not being applied as it should, as per Art. IX:1. The current stalemate is a textbook case of consensus being used as a veto against the interests of the overwhelming majority. This has to change. Consensus is being wrongly used, not as a gateway issue, but to permanently close the door to plurilateral agreements. Old ways will not open new doors. Or worse, old ways can destabilise the entire foundation, eventually bringing the house to fall. 

21. Fundamentals for WTO Reform – Communication on behalf of the ACP Group (WT/GC/W/975)

  • We welcome the submission by the ACP group and will continue to engage in discussions on reform including on decision making, development and LPF in line with EU statement yesterday which highlighted the importance that we attach to plurilateral agreements. 

  • In this regard, we very much welcome the new position announced by SA that they will not stand in the way of consensus on the incorporation of IFDA into annex 4 or on the topic being put on the agenda of MC14. 

22. Member Conversations on Current Economic Issues – Request from Canada

  • Trade and industrial policy has become a key challenge for the WTO and a major source of tensions in the international trading system currently. 

  • One first response to this challenge in the WTO have been the Canada-led Member-driven deliberations launched in September 2024, which have helped building common awareness and deeper understanding. We want to extend our thanks to Canada, to all co-hosts and all participants for their positive contributions. 

  • The stocktaking session of 25 November, co-hosted by Canada and Costa Rica, confirmed the willingness of Members to continue deliberations promptly after MC14. Ahead of the session, the EU circulated a discussion paper that (1) highlighted the importance of the topic for all WTO Members, (2) made proposals on how to cover the issue as a part of WTO reform and (3) suggested how to make future deliberation sessions more focused and productive. 

  • We do not see a dichotomy between deliberations and WTO reform. On the contrary both are mutually reinforcing: (i) level playing field issues must be a central part of WTO reform, and (ii) the informal deliberations should continue so as to increase our common understanding of the issues and potential solutions.

23. LDC Priorities – Communication from the Gambia on behalf of the LDC Group (WT/GC/W/979)

  • The European Union would like to thank the LDC Group for its communication.

  • We agree that many of the areas mentioned in this communication are indeed of interest and importance, not just to the LDCs but to the WTO and whole membership.

  • We note that several of these areas mentioned are already dealt with under other agenda items of the meeting or are subject to ongoing discussions which will certainly continue beyond MC14.

  • Our view about the way forward: we are not sure how they need to be captured and in which form. On that we refer to our comment about the possibility of having an outcome document at MC14.

24. Agriculture & Food Security Draft Declaration – Communication from the Gambia on behalf of the LDC Group (WT/GC/W/980)

  • The European Union would like to thank Gambia for its submission on behalf of the LDCs group of a proposal on food security and resilience.

  • Open, predictable and market-oriented agricultural trade is a crucial element, also when countries deal with domestic food security challenges. Export restrictions have been pointed out many times, as the biggest single trade distorting factor which should be avoided in a food security context, in particular precisely towards LDCs and NFIDCs. The EU believes that WTO could take further actions in this respect in MC14, like enhancing further transparency and disciplines on export restrictions.

  • We share the view that the agricultural reform process must be continued in full recognition of existing mandates, including of Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture. This must be done in an inclusive and balanced way.

25. Possible Illustrative List of Non-Binding, Voluntary Incentives for Reporting under Article 66.2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (G90 Proposal) – Communication from the Gambia on behalf of the LDC Group (IP/C/W/727 – JOB/TN/CTD/18/Rev.2)

  • The European Union and its Member States attach great importance to their commitment under Art. 66.2 of TRIPS. As every year, also this year we have submitted a comprehensive report on the EU’s and Member States’ technology transfer programmes to LDCs. 

  • When designing those programmes, the EU and its Member States have taken into consideration the needs and priorities for technology transfer expressed by the LDCs. 

  • The reports on the implementation of Art. 66.2 TRIPS will be discussed in detail at the next TRIPS Council as well as at a dedicated Workshop on the implementation of that Article, organised back-to-back with the next TRIPS Council. 

  • Therefore, before assessing if there is any need for the General Council to act on the possible examples of voluntary incentives for reporting under Art. 66.2 TRIPS proposed by G90, such examples should be thoroughly examined and discussed by the experts in the TRIPS Council.

31. Briefing on the Latest Developments in the Accession of Uzbekistan – Request from the Republic of Korea

  • The EU fully supports the accessions of Ethiopia and Uzbekistan. We are pleased to refer to the successful conclusion of our bilateral negotiations with Uzbekistan which we have notified to the WTO. 

34. Review of the Exemption provided under paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 (WT/L/1214)

  • Thank you, Mr Chairman. As we have stated in the past years, the EU supports this review process. 

  • The EU continues to have strong concerns with this unjustified exemption. The EU continues to view the Jones Act as a piece of legislation that restricts competition in the shipbuilding and shipping markets. Moreover, recent implementing rules show an increasingly protectionist interpretation of the legislation.

  • This situation has negative economic consequences for the EU's and other countries shipbuilding, logistics, dredging and energy industries. But it also has consequences in high cost for the US.   

  • We sincerely hope that the 2026 review will be consequential. 

-------------