WORLD TRADE
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
26 July 2006
ORGANIZATION
(06-3584)
Original: English
Committee on Trade and Development
Dedicated Session
SMALL ECONOMIES WORK PROGRAMME: THE MONITORING ROLE OF
THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT IN DEDICATED SESSION
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. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago
Revision
The following communication, dated 20 July 2006, is being circulated at the request of the
above delegations.
______________
THE MONITORING ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND
DEVELOPMENT IN DEDICATED SESSION
1.
During the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated Session (CTD DS) held in
October 2005, Members agreed to the continuation of the "two-track" approach in which the progress
of Agreement-specific proposals tabled in the relevant negotiating and other bodies be monitored by
the CTD DS. This decision was endorsed by the Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, China, as is
stated in the paragraph 41 of the Ministerial Declaration:
Paragraph 41:
We reaffirm our commitment to the Work Programme on Small Economies and urge Members
to adopt specific measures that would facilitate the fuller integration of small, vulnerable
economies into the multilateral trading system, without creating a sub-category of WTO
Members. We take note of the report of the Committee on Trade and Development in
Dedicated Session on the Work Programme on Small Economies to the General Council and
agree to the recommendations on future work. We instruct the Committee on Trade and
Development, under the overall responsibility of the General Council, to continue the work in
the Dedicated Session and to monitor progress of the small economies’ proposals in the
negotiating and other bodies, with the aim of providing responses to the trade-related issues
of small economies as soon as possible but no later than 31 December 2006. We instruct the
General Council to report on progress and action taken, together with any further
recommendations as appropriate, to our next Session.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 2
In addition to paragraph 41, the Declaration of the Sixth Ministerial Conference also states the
following:

NAMA Negotiations - paragraph 21 of the Declaration
We note the concerns raised by small, vulnerable economies, and instruct the Negotiating
Group to establish ways to provide flexibilities for these Members without creating a subcategory of WTO Members.

Services Negotiations – Annex C, paragraph 8
Due consideration shall be given to proposals on trade-related concerns of small economies.
2.
The small, vulnerable economies are therefore presenting this document entitled "The
Monitoring Role of the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated Session" to facilitate the
work of the Dedicated Session in fulfilling its monitoring role under the Hong Kong Ministerial
Declaration. The monitoring process in the Dedicated Session will assist in achieving the aim of the
Work Programme on Small Economies to "frame(s) responses to the trade-related issues identified
for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system…".
3.
The document is a factual compilation of the relevant sections of the proposals made by the
small, vulnerable economies in the negotiating and other bodies of the WTO and is submitted for the
acknowledgement, discussion and monitoring of the CTD DS.1
PROPOSALS TABLED IN THE RELEVANT NEGOTIATING AND OTHER BODIES
Committee on Agriculture - Special Session
Agriculture - TN/AG/GEN/11 (11 November 2005)
Proponents: Barbados, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala,
Honduras, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and Trinidad and
Tobago.
Small, vulnerable economies, with the exception of LDCs, whose average share of world
merchandise exports over the period 1995-2004 does not exceed 0.10 per cent, will make a
contribution to the reform process in agriculture according to the following provisions:



1
Small, vulnerable economies will undertake linear cuts not exceeding 15 per cent, with a
minimum of 10 per cent per tariff line, from the bound rate. No further commitments will
be expected from the small, vulnerable economies on the basis of modalities that may be
agreed with respect to other elements under the market access pillar.
No tariff capping shall apply to the small, vulnerable economies.
Modalities shall provide for substantial improvement in market access for products of
export interest to small, vulnerable economies.
Other specific proposals have been tabled in the CTDDS as follows:
- Technical Barriers to Trade - WT/COMTD/SE/W/15 (18 October 2005).
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures - WT/COMTD/SE/W/16 (18 October 2005).
- Intellectual Property Rights - WT/COMTD/SE/W/18 (18 October 2005).
- Accession to the WTO - WT/COMTD/SE/W/17 (18 October 2005).
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 3




Small, vulnerable economies will designate Special Products based on their food security,
livelihood security and rural development needs.
Special Products (SPs) of small, vulnerable economies will be exempted from tariff
reductions and tariff rate quota commitments.
All agricultural tariff lines will be eligible for the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM).
SPs of small, vulnerable economies will have automatic access to the SSM.
The small, vulnerable economies insist that the SSM shall contemplate price and
volume-based triggers. Remedy measures should be effective and flexible to respond to
the needs of the small, vulnerable economies.
Agriculture - Contribution on the Chairman's Reference Paper on Small Vulnerable Economies
(SVES) - JOB(06)/164 (31 May 2006)
Proponents: Barbados, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala,
Honduras, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and Trinidad
and Tobago.
Criteria for defining SVEs
In paragraph 3 of this reference paper, the Chairman notes that the criteria to define SVEs are
being discussed in other negotiating bodies. It is worth noting that the SVEs have recently presented
a submission in the Negotiating Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA)2 proposing that
countries whose average share for the period 1999-2004 (a) of world merchandise trade does not
exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent and (c) of world
agricultural trade does not exceed 0.40 per cent should be identified as SVEs.
The SVEs would wish to highlight that the vulnerability that characterizes them affects their
trade performance in the non-agricultural and agricultural sectors. In this sense, the same criteria
should prevail in both negotiating areas and we fully endorse the use of the criteria submitted in the
NAMA Negotiating Group for the agriculture negotiations.
Why should additional provisions for SVEs be considered for the inclusion in the agriculture
modalities?
Additional provisions for SVEs should be considered for the inclusion in the agriculture
modalities because:

SVEs face a higher risk of marginalization from the global economy than many other
developing countries in view of the vulnerability of the economies and of their exposure
to several geographical factors, which erode their competitiveness. The specific
characteristics and problems faced by SVEs were enumerated in their submission
WT/COMTD/SE/W/12 (21 February 2005). These include, among others, the size of
their economies and their domestic markets, frequent exposure to natural shocks,
dependence on a very limited number of goods and/or markets, geographical
disadvantages in some cases, such as lack of access to the sea and long distance from
world markets.
SVEs have expressed that the trade-related problems they confront in view of their
vulnerabilities could be addressed through flexibilities. These would contribute to
2
Circulated as a room document on 10 May 2006.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 4
enhance their participation in the multilateral trading system, in accordance with their
development, economic, financial and trade needs.

Because the negotiating mandate instructs to address the trade-related issues identified for
the fuller integration of SVEs into the multilateral trading system (July Package 3, para.
"other development issues") and to provide responses to the trade-related issues of SVEs
as soon as possible (Hong Kong Ministerial Decision, paragraph 41).
Why should additional provisions for Small Vulnerable Economies be considered for the
inclusion in the agriculture modalities at this stage? What specific provisions should be
envisaged?
The group takes the point raised by the Chairman in the sense that there is a certain level of
uncertainty surrounding the distinct elements of the general provisions for market access and related
special and differential treatment. However, during the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference a decision
was made with regards to:


The structure of the formula used for tariff reduction (tiered formula with four bands);
and
The designation of special products by developing country Members (they will have the
flexibility to self-designate an appropriate number of tariff lines as Special Products
guided by indicators based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural
development).
The level of ambition, which the SVEs is seeking is spelt out in paragraph 8 of
TN/AG/GEN/11. In this sense, given the current stage of the agriculture negotiations, provisions
applicable to SVEs should be based on the following principles:



SVEs will contribute less than other developing countries in terms of tariff reduction.
SPs designated by SVEs should be exempted from tariff reduction, capping, tariff-quota
commitments. They will also have the right to have recourse to a Special Safeguard
Mechanism based on import quantity and price triggers.
Modalities shall provide for substantial improvement in market access for products of
export interest to SVEs.
Negotiating Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access
NAMA - TN/MA/W/66 (11 November 2005)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bolivia, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad
and Tobago.
As their contribution to the NAMA negotiating process, small, vulnerable economies propose
that developing countries, not covered in paragraph 6 and paragraph 9 of Annex B, and whose
average share in total world merchandise exports does not exceed 0.10 per cent over the period
1995-2004, will be expected to:
3
"Doha Work Programme: Decision Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004". Document
No. WT/L/579 (2 August 2004).
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 5
(a)
Make tariff reductions not exceeding 15%, but with minimum cuts of 10% on
individual lines and with no more than half the cuts at the lowest level of this range.
This contribution will ensure a significant reduction of small, vulnerable economies’
tariff averages as well as a reduction in individual tariff lines.
(b)
On the treatment of unbound tariffs, small, vulnerable economies whose binding
coverage is more then 90 per cent commit themselves to the objective of full tariff
binding as an outcome of the NAMA negotiations. However, newly bound tariff
lines will not be subject to reductions through the formula during these negotiations.
Small, vulnerable economies are open to discuss a possible target rate at which these
tariffs should be bound or a maximum rate at which to bind these lines.
Small, vulnerable economies firmly believe that only tariff reductions compatible with their
capacity to sustain trade reforms, as spelt out in this paper, are likely to efficiently discharge the Doha
mandate. In this context, small, vulnerable economies will continue to have access to flexibilities
such as those outlined in paragraph 8 of Annex B.
NAMA Room Document - Criteria and Treatment of Small, Vulnerable Economies in the NAMA
Negotiations (10 May 2006)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bolivia, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mongolia, Nicaragua,
Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and
Trinidad and Tobago.
The proponents believe that the elements of their initial proposal4 (TN/MA/W66) are those
that would best translate the interests of the small, vulnerable economies in these negotiations.
Nevertheless, as a sign of our commitment to the NAMA negotiations as well as to the objective of
establishing negotiating modalities soonest, we have reviewed our position in a way that we feel best
accommodates the interests of all Members.
The criteria for the identification of potential developing country beneficiaries of this
proposal in the NAMA negotiations, excluding LDCs, countries in transition and paragraph 6
countries, would apply to the remaining countries:

whose share of world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent;

whose share of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent; and

whose share of world agricultural trade does not exceed 0.40 per cent5
The treatment proposed for developing countries who meet the above criteria would be that
these countries would not be subject to formula cuts, but would bind 100 per cent of their nonagricultural tariff lines at average levels reflected in the following tiers and bands:
4
This proposal addressed treatment on the basis of: (1) a linear cut on a line-by-line basis; (2) binding
100 per cent, if current binding coverage is over 90 per cent; (3) newly bound lines not subject to tariff
reductions.
5
Data Source: WTO, 1999-2004.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 6
Current Bound
Average %
Average %
Cut
Final Bound
Average %
0 – 30
10
0 – 27
31 – 40
15
26 – 34
41 – 50
20
33 – 40
51 – 60
25
38 – 45
61 -
30
43 -
Beneficiaries with less than 50 per cent binding coverage shall be allowed to keep [5 per cent]
of their lines unbound while binding the remaining [95 per cent] at an average of [ ].
The implementation of the tariff reduction commitments should be staged over a longer
period than other developing countries in order to ensure a smooth liberalization process and not
jeopardize the industrial and social development prospects of the small, vulnerable economies.
NAMA Room Document - Treatment of Small, Vulnerable Economies in the NAMA Negotiations
(15 June 2006)
Small, vulnerable economies (SVEs) believe that their initial proposal (TN/MA/W/66) best
translates the interests of SVEs in these negotiations. Nevertheless, as a sign of commitment to the
NAMA negotiations as well as to the objective of establishing modalities that address SVEs concerns,
proponents have once again reviewed their position, taking into consideration views and concerns
expressed by Members.
SVEs maintain that a solution can be found in a paragraph 6–type solution, and note the
willingness of most Members to maintain an open position in this regard.
SVEs further maintain their commitment to contribute to the Round, taking into consideration
their past contributions, and according to their ability to contribute further consistent with the
expected benefits for them from this Round.
The following principles have guided the revision of the SVEs treatment proposal:





SVEs should not be penalized for the progressive liberalization decisions they made
during the Uruguay Round, nor should they be asked to accept cuts in this Round greater
than Members who achieve greater benefits from the Round.
The dispersion in SVEs current bound averages (32.6 to 73.0) demands variable cuts to
variable final bound averages.
The treatment being sought by the small, vulnerable economies should be compatible
with the terms and mechanisms established in the NAMA Framework (Annex B of the
July 2004 decision by the General Council) and further mandated in paragraph 21 of the
Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.
This proposal builds on the treatment proposed in the Norwegian submission, which did
receive some favourable responses.
Full binding at any one bound average is not easily compared with less than full binding
at the same bound average.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 7

There is no justification for all SVEs binding at a lower average than other members
whose economies are at similar levels of development.
Based on data from the World Trade Report 2005, SVE proponents (excluding paragraph 6
and LDC countries) have average applied rates of 7.6 per cent while paragraph 6 countries have an
average of 13.8 per cent and LDCs 13.4 per cent. SVEs' effort to welcome imports is therefore clear.
Proposal
The treatment proposed for small, vulnerable economies would be that these countries would
not be subject to formula cuts, but would bind 100 per cent of their non-agricultural tariff lines at
average levels reflected in the following bands:
Current Bound
Average %
Average %
Cut
Expected
Final Bound
Average %
≤ 37
[….]
[….]
38 – 47
[….]
[….]
48 – 57
[….]
[….]
≥ 58
[….]
[….]
Tariff reduction for SVEs shall be on the basis of lower tariff cuts for those in the lower bands
and higher cuts for those in the higher bands.
In meeting this requirement, beneficiaries would make minimum reductions of [ ] per cent on
a maximum of [ ] per cent of individual tariff lines.
In the specific case of Fiji with less than 50 per cent binding coverage, Fiji shall be allowed to
keep [5 per cent] of their lines unbound while binding the remaining [95 per cent] at an average of [ ].
The implementation of the tariff reduction commitments should be staged over a longer
period than other developing countries in order to ensure a smooth liberalization process and not
jeopardize the industrial and social development prospects of the small, vulnerable economies.
Negotiating Group on Rules
Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines - TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2 (13 September 2005)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana,
Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Solomon Islands, and Trinidad
and Tobago.
Small, vulnerable coastal states seek appropriate special and differential treatment in any
disciplines on fisheries subsidies. In this regard the following should not be subject to subsidies
disciplines:
(i)
Any development assistance to developing coastal states;
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 8
(ii)
Assistance to artisanal or small-scale fisheries. This requires a consensus on the
definition of artisanal or small-scale. Some existing definitions of artisanal are based
on vessel size in metres, capacity in gross registered tonnage (GRT), or area of
operation in terms of proximity to the shoreline. We invite discussions on prevailing
definitions used by Member States and possible approaches for arriving at a
definition for use in the WTO; to facilitate the discussions, the sponsors of this paper
will share information with Members on definitions currently being used in their
respective jurisdictions;
(iii)
Access fees in fisheries access agreements;
(iv)
Fiscal Incentives - to facilitate the development of capabilities of small vulnerable
coastal states.
It is proposed that the special and differential treatment provisions of the ASCM for
Least-Developed Countries be maintained in future disciplines.
Council for Trade in Services Special Session
Services – Information Note (November 2005)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia,
Nicaragua, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and
Tobago.
The two-track process involving the CTD and negotiating groups has therefore emerged as
the process whereby the objective of framing responses to the trade related issues identified for the
fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system is being pursued.
Small Economies have already and will continue to demonstrate their engagement to the
services negotiations including through the tabling of initial and revised offers.
Taking the above into consideration, issues of concern to small, vulnerable economies should
be addressed satisfactorily in the services negotiations in order for these economies to participate
meaningfully in the multilateral trading system in accordance with their level of development, market
share, vulnerabilities and economic size and structure, without creating a subcategory of WTO
Members.
Working Party on Domestic Regulation
Services - Trade-Related Concerns of Small, Vulnerable Economies in the Working Party on
Domestic Regulation - JOB(06)/66 Rev.1 (2 May 2006)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia,
Nicaragua, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and
Tobago.
Recommendations to Address the Concerns of Small, Vulnerable Economies
This section lists the specific recommendations small, vulnerable economies propose in the
Article VI:4 negotiations for consideration in the disciplines to be developed for measures relating to
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 9
qualification requirements and procedures, licensing requirements and procedures and technical
standards. The list of recommendations provided in this section is not exhaustive and does not aim to
prejudice the negotiating positions of the submitting Members through the course of negotiations.
Small, vulnerable economies recommend that:
A.
B.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
(i)
Disciplines under Article VI: 4 shall preserve the right to regulate and shall
not prevent or prescribe the development and adoption of future legislation to
meet Members’ national policy objectives.
(ii)
The implementation of disciplines that require adjustment of existing
domestic regulation and/or the adoption of new implementation mechanisms
shall be consistent with their financial, administrative and institutional
capabilities.
(iii)
Multilateral disciplines shall only apply to measures affecting services sectors
when they are related to a Member’s schedule of commitments.
(iv)
The application of WTO disciplines in domestic regulation shall not prevent
any of its Members from establishing measures or mechanisms to support the
development of regional economic integration.
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
(i)
C.
D.
Measures related to qualification requirements shall not be limited to
qualification recognition and verification based on diplomas, test scores, and
the like and shall include, but not be limited to, experience and other methods
of verification, particularly those that ensure increased participation of small,
vulnerable economies in services trade.
QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES
(i)
Fees charged by the competent authorities should not be an impediment in
themselves to practising the relevant activity. Developing country Members
shall not be precluded from recovering fees where fees are utilized to meet
national policy objectives.
(ii)
Measures related to qualification verification shall only be applied to
establish the minimum qualifications sufficient for supplying the service.
(iii)
Measures related to qualification procedures shall establish clear mechanisms
to demonstrate that education and experience obtained or licenses and
certifications granted in the territory of a Member are comparable to those
obtained or granted in the territory of another Member.
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS
(i)
Fees charged by the competent authorities should not be an impediment in
themselves to practising the relevant activity. Developing country Members
shall not be precluded from recovering fees where fees are utilized to meet
national policy objectives.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 10
E.
LICENSING PROCEDURES
(i)
F.
G.
H.
Measures related to licensing procedures shall aim to ensure minimal
complexity and costs of requirements and procedures for entry into export
markets, including lower licensing and other related fees, as well as
streamlined border measures, that promote trade by small, vulnerable
economies.
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
(i)
Members shall notify in reasonable time to other Members, the establishment
and application of measures relating to national or international technical
standards.
(ii)
Members shall, where requested, grant other Members, especially developing
country Members, technical assistance on mutually agreed terms and
conditions regarding the establishment of technical standards and
participation in the international standardizing bodies.
(iii)
As a matter of good practice, Members involved in the development and
application of measures relating to plurilateral standards, and standards
developed and applied by non-governmental standardization bodies should
ensure maximum transparency of relevant processes for the benefit of other
Members.
TRANSPARENCY
(i)
Members shall ensure access to information on legislation and regulation of
export markets, information on qualification requirements and procedures,
licensing requirements and procedures, and technical standards.
(ii)
Members shall ensure the establishment of appropriate, transparent and
accessible administrative and judicial channels for reviewing decisions.
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
(i)
Small, vulnerable economies shall have adequate time to upgrade their
institutional capacity to comply with Article VI:4 disciplines.
(ii)
Technical assistance and capacity building assistance and various types of
flexibility including adequate time frames shall be provided in order to help
developing countries to develop their capacity to implement new disciplines.
(iii)
To guarantee that qualification and licensing requirements and procedures
and technical standards do not in themselves constitute barriers to trade,
technical assistance and capacity building assistance shall be provided in
order to help small, vulnerable economies meet such requirements and
procedures.
(iv)
To ensure full and equal participation in the development of international
technical standards, measures shall be adopted and implemented in order to
ensure the full representation and effective participation of small, vulnerable
economies in international standard setting bodies and in complying with the
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 11
standards. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to, enhanced
technical and capacity building assistance provided by trading partners to
service suppliers of small, vulnerable economies for meeting such
requirements.
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Procedures for Extensions Under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures - G/SCM/W/535 (12 April 2006)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St.
Lucia, St, Vincent and the Grenadines.
The sponsors of this proposal believe that the objective of "fuller integration of small,
vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system"6 could be achieved in part by reaffirming
the Article 27.4 procedures and extensions within the context of the provisions of the
14 November 2001, Doha Ministerial Decision on procedures for Extension under Article 27.4 of the
ASCM by granting further extensions until the year 2018.
The sponsors of this proposal submit the following modification to the procedures set forth in
document G/SCM/39 and call for the preparation of an addendum detailing "Procedures for
Extensions Under Article 27.4 for Certain Developing Country Members" which would amend
paragraph 1(e) of G/SCM/39 to state as follows:
A. "Through the calendar year 2018, subject to annual reviews during that period to verify
that the transparency and standstill requirements set forth in (3) and (4) are being fulfilled,
Members of the Committee shall agree to continue the extensions granted pursuant to 1(c)".
The extension procedures under Article 27.4 would hence be applicable to all of the members
and the existing programmes referred to in Annex A in line with paragraph 2 of G/SCM/39. This
extension process would be applicable from the end of 2007 through to the end of 2018 with identical
procedures as indicated in G/SCM/39 paragraph 1(f) and 1(g).
Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation
Regional Approaches to Trade Facilitation: Enquiry Points - TN/TF/W/129 (6 July 2006)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Papua New Guinea,
The Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
As small, vulnerable economies (SVEs), it should be recognized that the co-sponsors of this
proposal suffer from a lack of adequate financial, technical and administrative capacities to implement
all proposed trade facilitation measures at the national level. It should be noted that for SVEs the unit
costs of adopting some measures are higher and therefore may limit the ability of SVEs to reap the
full benefits of implementation. This notwithstanding, many of the co-sponsors have adopted, or are
in the process of adopting trade facilitation measures autonomously in order to, lower transaction
costs, improve the efficiency of port and transit procedures and improve transparency and
predictability.
6
WT/L/579, 2 August 2004 para 1(d).
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 12
There is a need in the current negotiations to identify opportunities for regional approaches to
implementing trade facilitation (TF) requirements and for the provision of technical assistance and
capacity building. Issues such as economies of scale, maximization of resources and targeted technical
assistance and capacity building have to be important considerations in these discussions.
The co-sponsors of this document have previously submitted proposals to the Committee on
Trade and Development in Dedicated Session and to the WTO SPS, TBT and TRIPs Committees
identifying regional approaches which could be utilized by Members to fulfill notification
requirement. Additionally, regional approaches to technical assistance utilizing regional architecture
to minimize administrative costs have also been proposed by the co-sponsors.
This present proposal speaks specifically to a regional approach to enquiry points but does not
preclude regional approaches being taken in any other relevant areas under discussion within the TF
Negotiations.
Proposal
The proposals currently on the table recognize the importance and usefulness of enquiry
points for providing information to traders and/or governments on the trade regulation of a country.
This submission by the co-sponsors seeks explicit recognition that a regional enquiry point for a group
of countries shall also be accepted and recognized as fulfilling any obligation under these provisions.
Notwithstanding the proposal, it should be recognized that the responsibility for ensuring that the
information is available to the regional enquiry point will remain with the individual WTO Members
concerned.
The following language is proposed for inclusion in any draft text which could be prepared in
the future:
"Establish enquiry points at the national level or in the case of SVEs/developing countries
involved in a Customs Union, FTA/RTA, the option of the establishment of enquiry points at
the regional level, to provide relevant information on trade procedures to trade."
"Members and the WTO, within its competence, shall provide technical and financial
assistance at mutually agreed terms to SVEs/developing countries to support the
establishment, modification and maintenance of these national and/or regional enquiry
points."
Special and Differential Treatment
SVEs/Developing countries/LDCs should have longer time periods to implement any
requirement on enquiry points.
It should be understood that individual members of the Customs Union/FTA/RTA may
maintain a national enquiry point if it is within their ability to do so but existence of a regional
enquiry point would preclude the obligation to maintain a national enquiry point.
Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Requirements
The regional approach lends itself to more effective and targeted forms of technical assistance
and capacity building and much of the assistance would be directed towards a mechanism which
would be utilized by all members of the Customs Union/RTA/FTA. To fully exploit the benefits of a
regional approach capacity building and technical assistance may also be channeled to the individual
members.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1
Page 13
The specific forms of technical assistance and capacity building required at both the national
and regional level would include the following:








Audit and compilation of regional trade-related legislation in an electronically exploitable
format (to be carried out at the national level).
Creation of a regional database with a view to harmonizing and updating the legislation.
Provision of translations in Spanish, French, Dutch and English.
Provision of security for data transmitted by the internet from the national governments to
the regional mechanism.
Review and revamping, where necessary, of national and regional trade policy
communication plans to incorporate all levels of traders (commercial and informal) into
the information forwarded to the regional mechanism.
Creation of websites and the development of interactive software on trade regulation to
ensure that the national legislation and trade policies can be fed into the regional
mechanism.
Training for customs and trade officials in internet publication [website data entry,
monitoring and update of information] and dissemination of information.
Infrastructure for the establishment/conversion/designation of a regional body or for a
department within a regional body to carry out the functions of a regional enquiry point.
This could include physical construction or modification of a facility; the provision of
computer systems; the hiring of additional dedicated staff, etc.
__________