Ctrc.sice.oas.org



World Trade

Organization |RESTRICTED | |

| | |

| |WT/COMTD/SE/M/12 |

| |9 December 2005 |

| |(05-5865) |

| | |

|Committee on Trade and Development | |

|Twelfth Dedicated Session | |

note on the meeting of 17 OCtober 2005

CHAIRMAN: H.E. MR. GOMI THARAKA SENADHIRA (SRI LANKA)

A. Adoption of the Agenda 1

B. Communication from Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and The Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago - "Small Economies Report to the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated Session" (WT/COMTD/SE/W/14) 2

C. Oral Report by the Chairman Concerning the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated Session's Report to the General Council 9

D. Other Business 10

1 Adoption of the Agenda

The Chairman recalled that the draft agenda for the meeting was contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/2689 issued on 7 October 2005.

The representative of Mauritius requested to include under "Other Business" a brief presentation of three new papers by a group of small economy proponents. These three papers were available in the room but had not yet been officially circulated.

The representative of the Solomon Islands also wished to include under "Other Business" a brief presentation of a new paper concerning WTO accession matters by a group of small economy proponents. This paper was available in the room but had not been officially circulated.

The agenda was adopted as amended.

2 Communication from Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and The Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago - "Small Economies Report to the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated Session" (WT/COMTD/SE/W/14)

The Chairman asked if any of the delegations which had co-sponsored the document WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 would like to take the floor to introduce the submission to the Dedicated Session.

In reference to the proposal WT/COMTD/SE/W/14, the representative of Barbados made an intervention, which is reproduced below.

Intervention by Barbados:

Thank you Chair and I welcome the presence of the Deputy Director-General responsible for development.

Much has happened since we last met in formal session – more on the outside than on the inside of this house. We are, nevertheless, pleased to see that in the last week significant progress has been made in the critical area of agriculture.

Chair, we last met on May 25, 2005 when document W/13 was presented as a means to provide a bridge between the characteristics and problems which were identified in W/12 and the third and most important step in the characteristics-based approach; that of framing responses. I take the opportunity to once again reiterate that all of our Ministers at Doha must have recognized the need for Members to address the concerns of small economies as captured in the Paragraph 35 mandate. This is the task we again address today.

We have seen small positive steps taken since July and an increasing recognition of the problems of small, vulnerable economies. There is still much work to be done. To this end we look to this committee to provide the leadership and impetus to allow us to move forward.

It would be remiss of me not to publicly express appreciation to those Members - both developing and developed - who continue to demonstrate an understanding of our concerns and who have exercised an increasing willingness to ensure that there is a meaningful outcome to the small economies Work Programme. For example, in the statement made by the EC Trade Commissioner at the Mini-Ministerial in Zurich last week he specifically mentioned the need to "make progress on a number of issues which are of particular importance to the LDCs and small economies…." China has also consistently, and in the TNC last Thursday, made reference to advancing the Small Economies Work Programme. The United States, Canada, Japan, India and Brazil, among others have often given good advice.

I am expressing this gratitude because with our very limited resources, the small economies proponents are unable to carry this burden alone. We know what we need but continue to welcome the support necessary to achieve a reasonable outcome.

Today, in W/14, we present a report on the activities of the Small Economies Work Programme since the tabling of W/13. This report is aimed at providing information to enable the CTD to undertake its monitoring and reporting function, while also maintaining its role as a forum to discuss and take decisions on issues and proposals of interest to small, vulnerable economies. It is expected that the CTD reports to the General Council will cover the matters discussed in the CTD as well as in the relevant negotiating and other bodies of the WTO. For this reason we have appended to W/14 the formal statements made by the wider group of small economies in the Agriculture Special Session and in the Negotiating Group on Market Access.

Reference is also made to a paper on Fisheries Subsidies disciplines which was cosponsored and tabled by a sub set of small economies in the Negotiating Group on Rules. The co-sponsors are Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Guyana, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, St. Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago.

I should also point out Chair that later in this meeting the delegations of the Solomon Islands and Mauritius will introduce additional proposals tabled by some small, vulnerable economies. These documents are available as room documents today.

Mr. Chairman in W/14 we recommend the continuation of the two-track approach where the CTD maintains its function of discussing and taking decisions on areas of interests to small economies; as well as continuing to monitor the progress of small economies proposals in the negotiating and other bodies; while Agreement-specific proposals are tabled in the relevant negotiating and other bodies.

Maintaining this two track approach is essential to our success. The role of the CTDDS must not be diminished as we respect the dynamics in the negotiating and other bodies. It is our expectation that the CTD's recommendation to the Hong Kong, China Ministerial Conference, reflected in the Declaration, would be the inclusion of language that reflects the work carried out and the progress made in the context of the CTD as well as in the negotiating and other bodies and shall instruct the negotiating and other bodies to continue to address the concerns of small, vulnerable economies towards the ultimate goal of framing responses to the problems identified. It is equally important that the Chairs of the Negotiating Bodies and other groups reflect the interests of the small, vulnerable economies in the conclusions and recommendations to the Ministerial Conference.

I submit that two things are required to advance the interest of small economies in the negotiating groups: an awareness of the problem by Members at large, and an articulation of possible solutions. In Agriculture and NAMA our statements as appended (JOB(05)/161 of 27 July 2005 Agriculture and (JOB(05)/165 of 29 July 2005 NAMA), in addition to other statements made in the CTD and in negotiating bodies would have helped to raise awareness of our concerns.

There is no doubt that small economies solutions will lie in the zone of special and differential treatment which is integral to all areas of the negotiations. However, Members must be persuaded that because of small economies' vulnerability, some special responses are desirable – similar to the consideration extended to "Developing countries that allocate almost all de minimis support for subsistence and resource poor farmers" in the July 2004 Decision.

To conclude Chair, we submit W/14 for the consideration of the membership. Its value must be reflected in the Committee's report to the General Council later this week as a means of advancing the Work Programme beyond Hong Kong. In this context the following should be noted:

Specifically, between October and November 2005 the negotiating and other bodies in which small economies' needs and concerns have been raised should be encouraged to give meaningful consideration to appropriate responses. The Chairs of those bodies should ensure that adequate recognition of responses is made in the draft declaration so that enhanced special and differential treatment concessions are extended to small economies where appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, after December 2005, the small economies proponents will continue refining and enhancing our body of proposals in the negotiating bodies and in the CTD as appropriate. In all cases, the CTD will be kept informed.

The final outcome of the Round should therefore see the delivery of effective, meaningful and operational responses to the trade-related problems of small economies.

The representative of Honduras as a co-sponsor of WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 supported the statement of the representative of Barbados. He noted that WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 in its first part was a summary of the work done so far and that the last part contained suggestions on how to proceed further. He said that progress had been slow but he was confident on the ultimate success of the Work Programme on Small Economies. He noted that concrete proposals on addressing the issues affecting small economies had already been introduced in the Agriculture and NAMA negotiations. He also noted that the small economies remained committed to trade liberalization but this had to be done at a pace that was bearable for small economies. He also stated that discussion of this matter was of the utmost importance and that his delegation was keen for it to be given effect through concrete action at the Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, China. He said the small economies expected to have precise language on the future of the Work Programme in the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.

The representative of Cuba said that the two-track process would help to find specific responses to the problems faced by small economies.

The representative of the United States welcomed the introduction of WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 and the proposals that had been made in the Agriculture, NAMA and Rules negotiating bodies. He noted that it was only in the specific negotiating bodies where Members could arrive at an agreed balance of rights and obligations in the specific areas and that this was not the role of the CTD.

The representative of the Dominican Republic said that WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 summarized the work done pursuant to the mandate in paragraph 35 of the Doha Declaration and was intended to be an input for the Dedicated Session's report to the General Council. She noted that paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration stated that "provisions for special and differential treatment were an integral part of the WTO Agreements" and indicated that "all special and differential treatment provisions shall be reviewed with a view to making them more precise, effective and operational." It was thus necessary for the WTO, given the gravity of the problems faced by small economies, to agree on concrete, precise, effective and operational responses to the problems identified by the small economies in the CTD. Regarding the responses proposed in the context of Agriculture and NAMA, she said that for her delegation it was of special importance that the appropriate flexibilities be given to help small economies integrate into the multilateral trading system. Such flexibilities had been identified in general terms in documents JOB(05)/161 and JOB(05)/165 respectively. She expected that more concrete responses would be introduced in the near future. Finally, she hoped that work would continue in the Dedicated Session to adopt the report to the General Council that would help Ministers attending the Sixth Ministerial Conference satisfy the needs and concerns of small economies.

The representative of Mauritius expressed his support for the statement made by the delegation of Barbados. He highlighted that work was taking a new profile and remarked the presence of Deputy Director-General Mrs. Rugwabiza. He welcomed the efforts by the Chairman and the management to move forward the work progamme on small economies.

The representative of the European Communities welcomed the introduction of WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 and agreed that the two-track approach with the Dedicated Session in a monitoring role was the best way to move forward. He said it was essential to deliver on the Work Programme given the merit of the concerns expressed by small economies. He noted that the concerns of small economies in the negotiating groups should be dealt with seriously. He recognized the need to ensure that small economies had a part in the Work Programme of each group. He also welcomed the new proposals and noted that it was exactly this type of proposal that could realistically be expected to address the problems and concerns of the small economies.

The representative of Switzerland thanked the sponsors of the recent submission WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 and said it was a very useful and very timely submission. He said that on 25 January delegations received a Chairman's note on the paragraph 35 mandate. He noted that the objective of this committee's work was to frame responses to the trade-related issues (identified for the fuller integration of small vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system); and to avoid creating a sub-category of WTO Members. He said the Chairman had suggested conducting discussions in three parts: consider the use of characteristics to identify what could be accepted as small, vulnerable economies – without naming any group of countries; consider the trade related problems which could be reasonably attributed to those characteristics – without naming any group of countries; and, frame responses to the trade-related problems – without naming any group of countries. Despite the hard work of the proponents as well as the good discussions that took place, he said it was not possible to come-up with an agreed definition of the characteristics and problems of the small economies. Yet, there were some shared opinions on some of the 17 elements in the list of specific characteristics and problems contained in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/12. This showed that it should be possible to narrow the views on the particular situation of small economies and achieve some degree of common understanding of the problems that need to be addressed. He noted that in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/13 the proponents shared with the Members their views on possible solutions to the problems set out in the previous submission. Switzerland had said it thought that the majority of the problems would have to be resolved in the core negotiations. This was the direction which was now proposed in WT/COMTD/SE/W/14. He believed that the way forward suggested in paragraph 8 of that proposal should be integrated into the report going to the ministers in Hong Kong. This is why he had carefully studied the proposal and wished to make the following comment. Regarding the monitoring role of the CTD, he said that his delegation agreed in principle that the CTD could have a monitoring role. It would be a way to make the mandate in paragraph 35 of the DDA more specific and operational. However, he did not believe that the CTD should monitor small economies' proposals in the negotiating bodies and other bodies. He believed that the CTD should monitor whether the problems and sensitive issues for which policy responses were needed were properly addressed in the negotiations. He said that if the CTD would monitor the proposals, this would require that all Members agree on the requests made in the proposals; and this he thought, was not possible. He referred to policy responses outlined in JOB(05)/161 paragraphs a) to c) in agriculture or JOB(05)/165 paragraph 6 for NAMA and said specific proposals in the relevant negotiating and other bodies could be made by the proponents. Finally, the third step would consist in monitoring progress by the Dedicated Session to assess whether the issues were taken care of in the negotiations and whether the policy responses emerging were appropriate.

The representative of El Salvador stated that the objective of WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 was to give new impetus to the work of the Dedicated Session. He noted that the representative of Switzerland had captured the essence of the arguments made by the small economies. He also said that El Salvador had a minuscule percentage of world trade and one of the objectives it was pursuing was to increase this percentage.

The representative of Japan said it was the right time to have an agreement on the way forward for the work of the Dedicated Session. He shared the general view that the two-track approach was the best way to move forward with the work of the Dedicated Session and this approach should be pursued before and after the Sixth Ministerial Conference. However, he doubted it would be possible to give appropriate consideration in the negotiating bodies to the proposals of small economies in October and November 2005 as was called for in paragraph 10 of WT/COMTD/SE/W/14.

The representative of Canada welcomed the two-track approach that was proposed in the paper. He also welcomed the efforts that had been made by the proponents to consult with other Members prior to presenting this paper to the Dedicated Session.

The representative of Peru said she recognized the concerns expressed by the small economies as well as a need for their special circumstances to be taken on board. She said it was agreed that this would be done in three stages: first, identifying the characteristics of small economies; second, identifying the trade related problems of small economies; and third, formulating responses to those problems. She believed that in order to move on to the third stage there should be consensus on the characteristics and problems. This had not yet been done. She thought that moving to the third stage without finishing the first two did not mean that the first two would be closed. Nevertheless, her delegation agreed with what was being proposed in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/14. This showed a willingness to continue working to find solutions to the problems of small economies. In her view, the two-track approach was the best way to move forward with the Work Programme. However, the proposals made by the small economies in the different negotiating bodies should be dealt with in accordance with the framework and mandate of the different negotiating bodies.

The Chairman confirmed that discussions on trying to identify the characteristics and problems faced by small economies had not been closed. However, the Dedicated Session needed to move forward with the Work Programme. Therefore, proponents had been encouraged to present specific proposals to the negotiating bodies.

The representative of the Solomon Islands welcomed the introduction of the paper and highlighted the importance of the two-track approach for advancing the Work Programme on Small Economies.

The representative of India welcomed the new submission by the group of proponents and recognized that the two-track approach was the best way forward for the Dedicated Session to advance the Work Programme for Small Economies. However, he said that the small economies needed to be patient with the consideration of their proposals in the negotiating bodies as some of the issues were blocked.

The Chairman said that patience was important and that he was sure that the proponents understood this. However, he also thought that it was important to flag some of the issues of the small economies early in the negotiations.

The representative of Guatemala said that the ambitions of small economies did not culminate at the Sixth Ministerial Conference. He said that the negotiations would continue after the Ministerial Conference and that it was then that the results for the small economies would be seen. He also agreed that the stages on identifying the characteristics and problems of small economies were not closed.

The representative of Brazil noted that WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 concentrated on a procedural approach to advance the Work Programme on Small Economies. This was very positive and his delegation was in agreement with the approach that had been put forward. He also welcomed the annexing to WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 of the proposals that had been made by the small economies in the agriculture and NAMA negotiations. However, he noted that it would be difficult to achieve any concrete response to the proposals made to the Agriculture and NAMA negotiating groups before the Sixth Ministerial Conference as some very difficult horizontal issues were still being worked out in those negotiations. He also commented on the new proposals that had been made available at the meeting and that would be circulated as documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/15 - 18. He noted that these were exactly the kind of proposals that had a high probability of being agreed to by Members as a solution to some of the problems of small economies. He said the proponents had been very modest in their ambitions with these new proposals and noted that in some instances the creation of regional authorities on certain issues was already allowed in some of the WTO Agreements.

The representative of Ecuador said the two-track approach was an appropriate way to continue with the discussions on finding responses to the problems of small economies. However, this would be without prejudice to her delegation's position that the question of identifying the characteristics and problems of small economies was not closed. She believed that many of the problems that had been mentioned by the proponents were not exclusive to the small economies and were shared by other developing countries. Regarding the proposal that had been made on NAMA, her delegation had some problems in accepting the solutions that were being proposed. She noted that, in her view, special and differential treatment was applicable to all developing countries and had to be dealt with according to the frameworks agreed for each negotiating group, for example Annex B of the August 2004 decision for NAMA and Annex A for Agriculture. Her delegation did not believe that there should be additional flexibilities granted to a specific group of Members that went beyond those that were being requested by the LDCs.

The representative of Mexico said she shared the concerns that had been expressed by the representative of Peru in her intervention.

The representative of Hong Kong, China said the two-track approach was the best one to advance the Work Programme. She thought the monitoring role of the Dedicated Session was interesting and noted that duplication of work between the CTD and the negotiating bodies should be avoided.

The representative of Bolivia said that for the small economies the Work Programme on Small Economies was as important as any other area of the negotiations. Therefore, the objective of document WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 was to facilitate the work of the Dedicated Session.

The representative of Mongolia said the General Council needed to ask the Ministerial Conference to extend the deadline for the Work Programme on Small Economies. However, he believed it was necessary for the Ministerial Conference to give specific guidance to the Dedicated Session and set a clear time limit on the Work Programme.

The representative of China was of the view that the Doha Development Agenda needed to address the concerns of all the developing countries, including the small economies. He asked whether the new set of proposals that would be circulated in documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/15 - 18 would change the current situation in the agreements concerned. He also asked whether the proponents were going to introduce the new proposals in the respective negotiating bodies.

The representative of Egypt expressed his support for the proposals contained in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/14. He also said that the Sixth Ministerial Conference presented a very good opportunity to better structure the process in the Dedicated Session. He also asked the representative of Switzerland to clarify his proposal.

The representative of Barbados asked the representative of Switzerland to provide him with his written proposal. He also supported the statements that had been made calling for the needs of all developing countries to be addressed in the negotiations. He was surprised that there were still some delegations that insisted on continuing to discuss the characteristics and problems of small economies and that still believed that there could not be specific solutions for the specific problems of a group of Members without creating a new subcategory of Members. He noted that there were numerous examples in the WTO of specific issues of a group of countries being addressed. Many of these examples had been reflected in paper WT/COMTD/SE/W/13. One of these examples was the treatment of net food importing developing countries during the Uruguay Round. This did not detract from the special and differential treatment given to other developing countries. More recently, there was the August 2004 General Council Decision for special consideration for countries that allocate almost all de minimis support for subsistence and resource poor farmers. In addition, in paragraph 1(d) of the August 2004 General Council Decision, there was a mandate that "special attention shall be given to the specific trade and development related problems, needs and concerns of developing countries". He said this was the general call for addressing the needs of developing countries that other delegations had referred to. But paragraph 1(d) went further, saying that "the trade related issues identified for the fuller integration of small vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system should also be addressed". There was, therefore, an exceptional and additional call to address the issues of small vulnerable economies. He asked all Members to see the wisdom in moving beyond consideration of the characteristics and vulnerabilities of small economies and to start focusing on trying to grapple with the responses.

He noted that the representative of India had said that small economies should be patient. They were willing to be patient, but there was also an issue of timing. The small economies were only asking that some language be used to demonstrate an urgency for moving forward with the Work Programme on Small Economies. This could be done by the Chairman of the Agriculture and NAMA negotiations just expressing a willingness to address the concerns of small economies. He noted that at this juncture the small economies were not asking for specifics, just recognition of the understanding that their concerns should be addressed.

He said the small economies were not trying to take anything away from other developing countries. In the past, there had been WTO responses to the special concerns of a group of Members with certain characteristics. Paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration was just asking for this to be done also for the small economies. He cautioned against further infighting among developing countries which could be used by developed countries to justify inaction in addressing the concerns of developing countries.

The representative of China asked the representative of Barbados for some clarification. He noted that the treatment for de minimis subsistence farmer support and cotton issues were only in the area of agriculture whereas the concerns of small economies covered all WTO agreements. He asked whether this difference in scope made any difference.

The representative of Jamaica agreed with the representative of Barbados that there was indeed a precedent in the WTO about concerns of a group of Members being addressed in a specific area. However, she noted that the paragraph 35 mandate on small economies was much broader and covered many areas of the WTO. The mandate on the Work Programme for Small Economies called for specific recommendations to be made to address the issues of concern to the small economies in all areas of the WTO. She also agreed with the delegations that had mentioned that the discussions on the characteristics and problems of small economies were not closed. However, she noted that the discussions had moved beyond that and into the area of responses to the issues and concerns of the small economies.

The representative of Mauritius requested the Secretariat to bring back the papers that had been circulated on the literature review and the document that contained the WTO provisions that may have to do with possible solutions for small economies. This latter document gave a synopsis of possible areas where work could be done. He noted that the legal texts of the WTO were replete with instances where a characteristics based approach was used to deliver responses to the problems of particular countries.

The Chairman said the presence of Deputy Director General, Mrs. Valentine Rugwabiza, had been noted by various delegations and signified the interest that the WTO's management and the Director-General had taken in the work of the CTD. He said he was quite happy about the progress that had been made in the Work Programme. He could also see that areas of convergence were starting to emerge among Members with regards to the concrete approach which could be taken to continue progress in the Work Programme. He noted that the two-track approach was a result of the work done by the proponents and other interested delegations, who realized that progress in the Dedicated Session had to be accompanied by progress in the negotiating bodies in dealing with the concerns of small economies. He was also very happy to see that both the proponents and other developing countries believed that most of the issues and concerns were similar between developing countries but that there were certain specific concerns that required specific attention for the small economies. This was where special solutions were being looked at. The Dedicated Session could rest assured that there would not be any attempt by the small economies to take any kind of rights and obligations in the Organization away from developing countries. There was just a need for recognition that in certain specific cases, specific solutions to advance the interest of small and vulnerable economies were required. Given the tone of the discussions, he was quite optimistic that the Dedicated Session would continue to make progress in the Work Programme on Small Economies.

Regarding the more immediate issue of the draft text for the Ministerial Declaration, the Chairman announced his intention to hold informal consultations to arrive at a consensus text.

3 Oral Report by the Chairman Concerning the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated Session's Report to the General Council

The Chairman noted that copies of the report as well as a paragraph which could be used in a draft Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration were available in the room. He said the draft report to the General Council was based on a report prepared and adopted by the Dedicated Session in July 2003, just before the Cancún Ministerial Conference. It followed the same structure. It had an introduction which referred to the mandate in paragraph 35 of the DDA and the 2002 Framework and Procedures for the conduct of the Work Programme on Small Economies. The introduction also mentioned the 1 August 2004 General Council Decision and provided a factual listing of all meetings since July 2003.

A second section focused on submissions and proceedings in each of the Dedicated Sessions starting with the Sixth Dedicated Session held in October 2003. Finally, there was a third section titled "Future Work". This last section appeared in square brackets and contained the same language as that used for the report in July 2003. He thought it would be helpful to see what kind of language Members had agreed to at that time for the Dedicated Session's last report to the General Council, and had reproduced it in the new draft. The Chairman said he would need to hear from Members as to what else they would like to add or change in the report, especially concerning the recommendations.

He said the paragraph for the draft text for the Ministerial Declaration concerning the Work Programme for Small Economies was also available in the room. The Ministerial Declaration text was quite factual. The Declaration in effect took "note of the report of the CTD in Dedicated Session to the General Council and the recommendations made therein". It was, therefore, not the Declaration that would contain recommendations but the CTD's report to the General Council concerning the Work Programme on Small Economies. The Chairman reiterated his intention to hold consultations on the draft text for the Ministerial Declaration before the end of the week and opened the floor for discussions.

The representative of Barbados said that, as a preliminary comment, she wished to see in the draft text for the Ministerial Declaration some more specific reference on how to concretize responses to the concerns of small economies and the results of the two-track process the Dedicated Session would be engaging in. She said that she would expand more on these thoughts in the consultations. She also noted that even if a preliminary agreement was reached at the consultations, the text may need to undergo some changes before the Ministerial Conference to reflect the dynamic nature of the negotiations.

The Chairman announced that consultations would be held on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 on the Ministerial Declaration paragraph. Regarding the report of the Dedicated Session to the General Council, he noted that consultations would also be held in the next weeks to adopt this report at the next meeting of the Dedicated Session which was scheduled for 16 November 2005.

4 Other Business

The representative of Mauritius on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines said he would be presenting a set of three proposals dealing with Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).[1] He said these proposals were without prejudice to individual country positions and to the rights of the proponents to submit additional proposals in future Dedicated Sessions or in the appropriate WTO bodies. He confirmed that these proposals would also be made to the appropriate negotiating and other bodies following the logic of the two track process.

Regarding the issue of TBT, he said that as small, vulnerable economies, the co-sponsors of this proposal suffered from a severe lack of adequate financial, technical and administrative capacities to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. These countries had to prepare, adopt and apply technical regulations and conformity assessment systems, which were necessary to ensure the quality of exports and to protect human, animal and plant life or health and the environment and to gain access to export markets. He said that given the small size of their economies, the unit cost associated with implementation of the TBT Agreement was higher in these countries than in most other WTO Member countries. He explained that the paper contained the following proposal: "Recognising the contribution that international standards and conformity assessment systems can have in improving efficiency of production and facilitating the conduct of international trade, the General Council is to recommend to the Ministerial Conference that there shall be explicit recognition of Members' rights to designate a regional body to provide such technical support as is necessary to assist them in fulfilling their obligations under the TBT Agreement. Members and the WTO, within its competence, shall provide the technical and financial assistance required to enable these small, vulnerable economies to fulfil their objectives under this Agreement."

Regarding the paper on SPS, he said the reasoning behind this paper was very similar to that found in the paper concerning TBT. The paper contained the following proposal: "Recognising the special difficulties encountered by the co-sponsors of this proposal in complying with SPS measures, and as a consequence in access to markets, and also in the formulation and application of SPS in their own territories, the General Council is to recommend to the Ministerial Conference that there shall be explicit recognition that WTO Members may designate a regional body to provide technical support as is necessary and to carry out the functions necessary to assist them in implementing the provisions of the SPS Agreement. Members and the WTO, within its competence, shall provide the technical and financial assistance required to enable these small, vulnerable economies to fulfil their objectives under this Agreement."

Regarding the paper on TRIPS, the representative of Mauritius said that many developing countries had experienced severe difficulties in the implementation of many of the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. These problems were particularly pronounced for the small economies, which had extremely limited capacity to implement complex rules and procedures found in the TRIPS Agreement. He noted that Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement made provisions for developed countries to provide, upon request, technical and financial co-operation to assist in the implementation of intellectual property rights provisions. However, the co-sponsors of the proposal, given their small administration and the complex nature of the Agreement, had even experienced difficulties in identifying their needs and requirements in order to make requests for assistance. Moreover, given the small size of their populations, some of these economies did not have the manpower and institutional capacity necessary to establish domestic offices and relevant agencies or to train personnel to deal with these matters. Thus, the unit cost and administrative burden of implementing the agreement at the national level were generally higher in small economies than in most other WTO Member countries.

The paper contained the following proposal: "Recognising the underlying public policy objectives of national systems for the protection of intellectual property, including developmental and technological objectives, and also the need to enable these small, vulnerable economies to create a sound and viable technological base, the General Council is to recommend to the Ministerial Conference that there shall be an explicit recognition of Members' rights to designate a regional body to provide such technical support as is necessary to assist them in fulfilling their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Members and the WTO, within its competence, shall provide the technical and financial assistance required to enable these small, vulnerable economies to fulfil their objectives under this Agreement."

The representative of Mauritius said that all these three proposals had been made available on a provisional basis and he requested that the proposals be formally circulated as soon as possible.

The representative of the Solomon Islands introduced the fourth paper.[2] This new paper concerned Accession to the WTO and was sponsored by Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. He said that Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO provided that a State or separate customs territory may accede to the WTO on terms to be agreed between it and the WTO Members. The process of meeting these terms and conditions involved a multilateral track whereby acceding countries must demonstrate to the Members of the WTO Working Party on Accession that their trade regimes were, or would soon be, in conformity with WTO rules. It also involved a parallel bilateral track under which the acceding country negotiated tariff concessions as well as commitments with respect to agriculture and trade in services with any Member of the Working Group wishing to enter into such negotiations.

There were, however, no specific rules or disciplines concerning accession negotiations, or even generally accepted benchmarks. This had opened the door to problems that had complicated the accession process, and which had resulted in acceding countries being required to accept many more obligations than founder WTO Members at similar stages of development.

He noted that the case of Vanuatu, a least-developed acceding country, illustrated the extent of commitments sought from an acceding, small and vulnerable economy. During its accession process, Vanuatu (with a population of around 160,000) was requested to join plurilateral Agreements on Government Procurement and on Trade in Civil Aircraft, which are optional, as a condition for its WTO accession. Vanuatu had refused and noted that it should not be obliged to accept much more stringent commitments than those of the LDCs with original WTO Member status, thus avoiding setting a precedent unfavourable to other acceding LDCs. On tariffs, Vanuatu's average bound rate of tariff was 49 per cent, Fiji – 40, Papua New Guinea – 40, and Solomon Islands – 80. This clearly demonstrated that Vanuatu had made offers not dissimilar to those made by much larger and more developed countries in the region, and much lower than offers made by LDCs such as Solomon Islands. Vanuatu had also agreed to zero-for–zero commitments in more than 160 tariff lines and was in full conformity with zero-for-zero initiatives in information technology. It had offered to provide duty-free access for aircraft and parts and pharmaceuticals by 2005. No other LDC made offers even remotely close to those of Vanuatu during the Uruguay Round. He went on to say that in the services sector, the commitments made by Vanuatu were far more extensive than those made by other WTO Members. It had made service sector commitments with clear and unambiguous market opening commitments in 18 areas. This was more than four times the average for LDCs that were Members of the WTO.

He said that, after almost ten years, and despite lengthy accession negotiations, Vanuatu remained an observer at the WTO. So were Samoa, another LDC, and Tonga. Tonga began its process in 1996 and Samoa in 1998. As demonstrated in the case of Vanuatu, the accession process was biased against the applicant. The process gave enormous powers to the WTO Members to extract concessions that would not be possible in a genuinely rule-based system. He concluded that the process must therefore be reformed and the paper presented sought exactly that. It sought to do four things:

1. to remind Members that the process of accession to the WTO of small, vulnerable economies placed unreasonable demands on applicant countries and that small, vulnerable economies had been particularly affected;

2. it should therefore be agreed that, in both the negotiations on rules in accession Working Parties and in the negotiations on market access commitments, acceding small, vulnerable economies would only be required to undertake commitments commensurate with their level of development;

3. to point out that while there had been some attempts by the WTO to improve the process, this had not reduced the problems faced by small, vulnerable economies acceding countries because of the lack of basic rules governing the process. This was a major inherent flaw in the accession process;

4. and to address this inherent flaw in the accession process, it should be agreed that if a party to the negotiations on the accession of any applicant country considered that the terms of reference of the relevant Working Party were not being observed, it may request the establishment of a panel to be appointed by the Director-General to examine the case and report with recommendations to the General Council and the Ministerial Conference.

He highlighted that the last point was exactly the right bestowed on all WTO Members during a dispute and no WTO Member would countenance a system where panellists reviewing the WTO compatibility of their trade regime were also complainants. Thus, a report of a panel of experts would fulfil the perfectly legitimate demands of WTO Members that there be a review of the trade regime of applicants. This report could then act as the basis for negotiation of necessary reforms of the trade regime of WTO applicants.

The representative of Cuba supported the content of the proposals. She noted that the implementation costs of some of the agreements to small economies were too high and that technical and financial assistance was required. She also shared the proposal on reforming the accession process since many small economies were facing demands for accession that went beyond their effective possibilities.

The representative of Barbados noted that the basis of the proposals was the desire and need by the small economies to comply with WTO obligations, but for which assistance was needed.

The representative of the United States welcomed the proposals and said they would be carefully studied.

The Chairman reminded Members about the upcoming consultations on 19 October 2005 and said the next Dedicated Session would be held on 16 November 2005.

The meeting was adjourned.

__________

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

[1] These proposals were later circulated as documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/15 - 16 and WT/COMTD/SE/W/18.

[2] This proposal was later circulated as document WT/COMTD/SE/W/17.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download