WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION
RESTRICTED
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
30 January 2006
(06-0404)
Committee on Trade and Development
Thirteenth Dedicated Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 16 NOVEMBER 2005
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Gomi Tharaka Senadhira (Sri Lanka)
A.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................................ 1
B.
COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BARBADOS, CUBA, DOMINICA,
FIJI, GRENADA, JAMAICA, MAURITIUS, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS,
ST. KITTS AND NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "AGREEMENT
ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE: DESIGNATION OF A REGIONAL BODY"
(WT/COMTD/SE/W/15) ............................................................................................................ 2
C.
COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BARBADOS, CUBA, DOMINICA,
FIJI, GRENADA, JAMAICA, MAURITIUS, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS,
ST. KITTS AND NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "AGREEMENT
ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES:
DESIGNATION OF A REGIONAL BODY" (WT/COMTD/SE/W/16)............................................... 2
D.
COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BARBADOS, CUBA, DOMINICA,
FIJI, GRENADA, JAMAICA, MAURITIUS, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS,
ST. KITTS AND NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "ACCESSION
TO THE WTO" (WT/COMTD/SE/W/17) .................................................................................... 7
E.
COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BARBADOS, CUBA, DOMINICA,
FIJI, GRENADA, JAMAICA, MAURITIUS, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS,
ST. KITTS AND NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "TRADE
RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AGREEMENT: DESIGNATION OF A
REGIONAL BODY" (WT/COMTD/SE/W/18) .............................................................................. 2
F.
DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT IN DEDICATED
SESSION TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL (WT/COMTD/SE/W/19) ............................................... 11
A.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.
The Chairman recalled that the draft agenda for the meeting was contained in
Airgram WTO/AIR/2713 issued on 3 November 2005.
2.
The agenda was adopted.
3.
The Chairman noted that the papers dealing with the Agreements on Technical Barriers to
Trade (TBT), Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (SPS) and Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPs) – which had been circulated in documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/15, 16 and 18
- contained similar proposals. Therefore, he suggested discussing these three papers at the same time.
Thus, agenda items B, C and E would be discussed together and then the Dedicated Session would
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 2
discuss item D concerning the paper on Accession to the WTO circulated in document
WT/COMTD/SE/W/17.
4.
It was so agreed.
B.
COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BARBADOS, CUBA, DOMINICA, FIJI,
GRENADA, JAMAICA, MAURITIUS, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, ST. KITTS AND
NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL
BARRIERS TO TRADE: DESIGNATION OF A REGIONAL BODY" (WT/COMTD/SE/W/15)
C.
COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BARBADOS, CUBA, DOMINICA, FIJI,
GRENADA, JAMAICA, MAURITIUS, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, ST. KITTS AND
NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "AGREEMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF
SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES: DESIGNATION OF A REGIONAL BODY"
(WT/COMTD/SE/W/16)
E.
COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BARBADOS, CUBA, DOMINICA, FIJI,
GRENADA, JAMAICA, MAURITIUS, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, ST. KITTS AND
NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "TRADE RELATED INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS AGREEMENT:
DESIGNATION OF A REGIONAL BODY"
(WT/COMTD/SE/W/18)
5.
The Chairman asked if any of the delegations which had co-sponsored
documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/15, 16 and 18 would like to take the floor to introduce the
submissions to the Dedicated Session.
6.
The representative of Barbados made a general statement, which is reproduced below.
Intervention by Barbados:
"Since we last met on 17 October at the CTD Dedicated Session, the small economies
have been engaged on a number of different fronts. The concurrence by the
membership as to the validity and viability of the two-track approach has afforded us
a more clear and linear structure from which we have approached our continued work
under the Dedicated Session. As Members will recall the two-track process allows
for both the tabling of specific negotiating proposals in the negotiating and other
bodies of this house; the tabling of proposals of a general nature for discussion and
decision in the CTD as appropriate; and the monitoring by the CTD of proposals
tabled in the negotiating and other bodies. A report on the progress of these different
tracts was tabled in WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 on 17 October and included the
following: the reference to and attachment of the NAMA and Agriculture proposals;
mention of a Fisheries Subsidies proposal which was tabled by some of the small
economies; four proposals of an administrative nature dealing with TBT, SPS, TRIPS
and Accession tabled by some small economies.
The reaction to W/14 was positive and for that we express thanks to all Members.
The four administrative proposals are on the agenda today and we anticipate that they
will also be discussed with a view to finding solutions to the issues raised therein.
Consistent with this approach, in the last week, two negotiating proposals have been
tabled by some of the small economies in the NAMA and the Agriculture
negotiations. In NAMA document TN/MA/W/66 entitled "Treatment of small
vulnerable economies in the NAMA negotiations" was tabled and preliminarily
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 3
discussed. This was co-sponsored by Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bolivia,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras,
Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guineas, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia,
St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.
In the Agriculture negotiations, document TN/AG/GEN/11 entitled "Proposal by
small, vulnerable, economies on market access in agriculture" was tabled. This
proposal was co-sponsored by Barbados, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New
Guineas, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago.
In the interim we have also participated in two informal Dedicated Session meetings
to discuss the draft Report to the General Council. To this end may we express
thanks to you Chair and the delegate of Switzerland who chaired one of the informal
meetings in your absence. The impartiality and skill imparted by both yourself and
the Swiss delegate was commendable and led to a meeting of minds on the draft
report we have before us. There is no such thing as a perfect report, and this is no
exception.
The proponents would have wished to see greater reflection on the many positive
strides made this year as well as greater and more definitive direction for the way
forward. However, in the spirit of compromise and good faith in which we have all
come to the table, the small economies are prepared to support the adoption of the
Report as it stands today. It has been the result of a careful weighing of interests and
has emanated from formal, informal, bilateral and plurilateral meetings where there
have often been diverging interests; but the small economies hold the view that given
the environment in which the discussions have been taking place, that is one in which
the kind of progress expected in Hong Kong is unknown, you have produced a fair
and balanced report.
At the same time, discussions were held on the draft Ministerial text. This has been
another exercise in delicacy. Whereas we would have preferred that stronger
language be put before the Ministers, the small economies would be willing to accept
the language as it stands today with the removal of the brackets around the term
"agree to" and those brackets surrounding the date.
Chair, the small economies have carried out some solid work since July this year. A
number of small economies have tabled the Job document and the negotiating
proposal in NAMA; a number of the small economies have tabled the Job document
and the negotiating proposal in Agriculture; the small economies of the Caribbean
and Pacific have tabled a fisheries proposals in Rules; the small economies have
tabled a new document in the CTD DS which sought to coalesce the past and look to
the future; and a number of small economies have put forward four administrative
proposals in the CTD DS.
There are those who have said that the small economies may have missed the train for
MC6. While that is debatable Chair, I wish to assure you that we do have our train
tickets in hand and that our seats are booked. We now look to you Chair and the
Members of this Committee to help ensure that we are indeed on board.
Despite this progress, there is still much to be done. We shall continue to engage in
discussions in the CTD DS through the tabling of proposals of a general and
administrative nature, as well as ensure that the CTD is able to monitor the
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 4
discussions of small economies' proposals in the various negotiating and other bodies.
The proponents are also currently developing proposals for other areas of the
negotiations such as in Services and Rules and hope to be able to bring these into the
system in the New Year."
7.
The representative of St. Kitts and Nevis on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica,
Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines expressed support for the statement
made by the delegation of Barbados. He appreciated the work that had been undertaken by Barbados
on behalf of small and vulnerable economies and the non-resident Members of the WTO. He said the
challenges faced by small economies sometimes seemed to be insurmountable. At the same time the
small economies maintained a belief in a multilateral system that truly benefits all – not just the rich
and the powerful, but also the small and the vulnerable. In this regard, he trusted that the issues
addressed by the delegation of Barbados would have a resonance in the WTO. He also hoped that the
concerns of the small and vulnerable economies would continue to be given the positive attention that
they deserved as this would assist in enabling them to be fully, effectively and beneficially integrated
into the global trading system.
8.
He said that the small economies had tried and would continue to try in a variety of ways to
meet the challenges of the multilateral system. Some of the particular ways that these co-sponsors
had attempted to ensure that their interests were addressed had been through joining their resources in
several areas. This included the establishment of a joint technical mission in Geneva representing the
WTO Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Members. He noted that while this was
sub-optimal, it was this type of effective and innovative mechanism that helped the OECS countries in
the WTO process. These countries also have a joint mission in Brussels, in Ottawa and a variety of
joint institutions under the umbrella of the organization of Eastern Caribbean States. In this context,
the three proposals before the Dedicated Session on TBT, SPS and TRIPs served to further
institutionalize their practice of joining their capacities, capabilities and resources to fulfil WTO
obligations. This enabled the small and vulnerable states with limited capacity to address these very
demanding obligations. However, the OECS countries kept in mind that the ultimate responsibility
for the obligations undertaken at the WTO remains with the sovereign Members of the WTO and not
with an institutional framework. The OECS countries fully recognized that. The proposals that had
been tabled presented some solutions to aid small countries which simply had too few officials to
handle the plethora of issues and concerns in the WTO. He said the OECS countries would continue
to table to the CTD Dedicated Session and, where relevant, to negotiating groups, proposals that could
help small economies effectively integrate into the multilateral trading system.
9.
The representative of Belize expressed support for the statement made by the representative
of Barbados. She also thanked the small economies group led by the delegation of Barbados for
securing the interests of the non-residents in the Dedicated Session.
10.
The representative of the Solomon Islands noted that the cost of implementation of some of
the WTO Agreements was very high and that only a regional approach could help alleviate these costs
for the small economies. A regional approach would also help to ensure a timely implementation of
the agreements. He said that numerous technical assistance efforts had been deployed to help the
small economies. However, these efforts had been ineffective because of the capacity constraints
suffered by these countries. A regional approach would be a more cost-effective manner in which to
help the small economies implement the WTO Agreements.
11.
The representative of Brazil expressed his support to the proposals on SPS and TBT as his
delegation was always in favour of regionalization. He said that on these issues, borders were not
very relevant. Therefore, he thought a regional authority on SPS and TBT could be feasible.
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 5
12.
The representative of the United States expressed constructive support for a regional approach
on compliance with TBT and SPS obligations. She said that her authorities had not yet reacted to the
proposal on TRIPS. She thought that a regional approach for small economies to implement some of
their WTO obligations was worth exploring. She also asked whether these proposals had been
submitted to the respective committees handling these issues. She said that the United States as a
donor country was interested at looking at innovative and productive ways to provide technical
assistance.
13.
The representative of Switzerland said that as a small country Switzerland also understood
resource constraints. She said it was positive that the proposals did not deviate from the WTO rules
based system. She asked whether the proponents could do a presentation outlining their regional
experiences in the relevant areas as well as the interface with the national governments.
14.
The representative of Japan said the proposals should be made in the respective committees
dealing with the relevant issues. He wanted some clarification on where the proponents wanted to
discuss the proposals, either in the Dedicated Session or in the respective committees. Since the
proponents came from different geographical regions, he also wanted to know whether the proponents
had in mind a single body for all the small economies or different bodies for each region. He also
asked about the relationship that was envisaged between the regional authorities and the national
authorities regarding the process of adopting regulations. He believed that even if there were regional
authorities in some areas, as proposed, it would still be necessary to carry out individual needs
assessments for technical assistance. He also expressed his reservations on the language in the
proposals that would make technical assistance mandatory.
15.
The representative of India said his delegation was supportive of regional pooling of
resources. He asked whether there was a specific need to add a new rule to the existing agreements,
in order to achieve what was being proposed or whether this could be done under the existing
framework. He also requested the proponents to clarify what would be the relation of the regional
bodies with the national governments. He was of the view that the proposals should be made to the
specific negotiating groups that were dealing with the issues covered by the proposals.
16.
The representative of Thailand on behalf of ASEAN expressed support for regional
integration on the issues covered by the proposals. He noted that ASEAN also had some regional
programmes that allowed for the pooling of resources. He asked the proponents to clarify the regional
dimension envisaged in the proposals. He also asked whether the new regional bodies would be
conjoined with existing bodies and about the scope of the Membership in these regional bodies.
17.
The representative of Suriname recognized the importance of regional cooperation in the
areas covered by the proposals and supported their content.
18.
The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was receptive to the
ideas reflected in the proposals. However, some issues should be explored either in the Dedicated
Session or in the negotiating bodies. One problem that he saw in the proposals was the implication
that technical assistance would be mandatory as this was not the usual practice of the WTO.
19.
The representative of Barbados said that in order to reply to the questions that were raised he
would like his colleagues, specially from CARICOM, to consider giving him some ideas in writing.
He recalled that a question on process had been raised on whether these issues had been taken to the
TBT, SPS and the TRIPs Committees. He replied that they had not been submitted to those bodies
and that there were three primary reasons for that. One was that the legal architecture of the WTO
envisaged the possibility of bringing proposals of a general nature to the CTD for recommendations or
decisions to the General Council. It was the estimation of the proponents that the proposals were of a
sufficiently general and administrative nature and that they could be examined in the Dedicated
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 6
Session and that recommendations could emanate from the CTD. He said the proposals did not
recommend any change to the legal structure of the three agreements concerned. He recalled that
some countries had said that these issues were already provided for in the agreements and asked why
there would be a need to make specific proposals. He said the need for legal certainty in the WTO
was paramount to small economies. There had been instances in the past, for example, in subsidies,
where some small economies developed certain programmes which they thought to be legal only to be
told later that these subsidies were in contravention to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures. He said that the need for legal structure and explicit recognition was not a matter that was
taken lightly by small countries.
20.
He said another reason why these papers were not taken to the respective bodies was that
none of these bodies were meeting between the time when the proposals were prepared and the
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. The proponents felt that it was very important that these
proposals be reflected in the CTD's Annual report to the General Council.
21.
The third issue was the capacity constraints of small economies. If the proposals were put
before each of the negotiating bodies, the small economy proponents would be putting three proposals
which were quite similar in nature before three different bodies. They would then have to attend and
participate in all those bodies as well as to follow-up on the proposals. From a practical point of view,
the proponents felt the CTD could, within its mandate, examine these proposals. This did not mean
that the proponents were opposed to the idea of having the experts in the negotiating bodies examine
the proposals in an informal manner. The delegate of Barbados said he had shared the proposals with
the Secretariat of some of the relevant negotiating bodies and had received some positive feedback.
22.
Turning to the issue of technical assistance, he recalled that there had been some concerns
raised by the delegates of Japan and the European Communities that the proponents were attempting
to make technical assistance mandatory. He explained it was not their intention, especially with the
inclusion of the phrase "within its competence". Therefore, the language in the proposal does not
make it mandatory that small economies have to receive technical assistance and that it has to be
provided by any particular country or organization. However, to implement the regional bodies, small
economies would need some degree of assistance, but it was never the proponent's intention to tie the
WTO's hands into providing technical assistance.
23.
Regarding Thailand's questions, he was not in a position to answer them because officials in
the region would only start drawing up blue prints for a regional body when there was some
agreement within the WTO that small economies could proceed on the basis outlined in the papers.
He noted that the new bodies would not seek to create new standards. The objective of the new
regional body was to assist in practical ways in terms of laboratory facilities, technical assistance and
sharing resources and expertise. He also indicated that he would be happy at a later date to give an
overview of the regional institutions that existed in the Caribbean and how they had been
implemented and organized. He said the idea was that there would be separate regional bodies for
each region.
24.
The representative of St. Kitts and Nevis asked if the questions which had been raised during
the meeting could be submitted in writing. He noted that the idea behind the proposals was that the
newly created regional bodies would follow the model of existing regional organizations. He
explained that in the Caribbean region there was CARICOM and within it there was the OECS.
These organizations had no overlap between them and the OECS had gone further in regional
integration. In that regard, the OECS had a common central bank, judiciary and common regulatory
bodies for aviation, telecommunications, government procurement and others. These bodies
functioned on the basis of national laws and regional actions and measures had direct national
application in the OECS countries. These regional bodies were co-financed by all the OECS
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 7
countries. As another example of the regional integration already taking place in the Caribbean, he
also mentioned that CARICOM had a regional standards authority.
25.
The representative of Peru suggested that proposals be submitted to the specialized groups.
She thought that the proposals were not just of an "administrative and general" nature. She reserved
the right to make further comments on the proposals when they were introduced to the respective
negotiating groups.
26.
The representative of Fiji said there are 14 small island states in the pacific region and that
only three of those states were WTO Members. The pacific islands had a regional integration
framework known as the South Pacific Community. Among the competencies of the South Pacific
Community was the issue of standards.
27.
The representative of Bahamas supported the statements of Barbados and St. Kitts and Nevis
on behalf of the OECS.
28.
The representative of Vanuatu supported the proposals and said that his country, as a small
island state, also suffered from capacity constraints. He said a regional authority could help alleviate
this problem.
29.
The representative of St. Lucia complimented Barbados on its leadership and the other
proponents on the work done on the proposals on SPS, TBT and TRIPs. She said the severe
constraints faced by small economies as a result of small size were numerous. They had permanent
structural handicaps such as very limited land space and human resources. She said that their
exposure to exogenous shocks, whether they be of an economic or natural origin, contributes to very
high vulnerability indices, according to documents published by many international organizations.
These deficiencies imposed numerous restrictions and hampered meaningful economic growth for
small economies, especially if they acted individually. A regional approach was therefore necessary
for adequate representation in the multilateral trading system. She said the Work Programme and the
proposals on the designation of a regional body were very important to small economies because they
address these deficiencies and would inevitably result in more of the small economies being able to
actively and effectively participate in the multilateral trading system. She trusted this would also
contribute to new impetus for the Work Programme in Hong Kong.
30.
The Chairman noted that there was broad support for the proposals. He hoped that the
Dedicated Session could move forward on these proposals early in the coming year.
D.
COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BARBADOS, CUBA, DOMINICA, FIJI,
GRENADA, JAMAICA, MAURITIUS, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, ST. KITTS AND
NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "ACCESSION TO THE WTO"
(WT/COMTD/SE/W/17)
31.
The Chairman asked if any of the delegations which had co-sponsored
document WT/COMTD/SE/W/17 would like to take the floor to introduce the submission to the
Dedicated Session.
32.
The representative of the Solomon Islands made the following statement:
"Thank you for giving me the floor to introduce paper WT/COMTD/SE/W/17 on
Accession to the WTO. This paper, you will note, is sponsored by Antigua and
Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea,
Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines.
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 8
Many WTO Members who have gone through the process of accession since the
creation of the WTO have found the process burdensome and onerous. This has been
particularly the case for the many small and vulnerable economies which are
particularly disadvantaged in terms of their ability to negotiate.
The principle difficulty faced by small vulnerable economies is common to all
acceding countries irrespective of their size.
Accession negotiations are
fundamentally different from other WTO negotiations. During accession, the
applicant may make no demands of other WTO Members.
In such a process, where a party cannot impose any cost for demands placed by WTO
Members, the outcome is predictable. The negotiations will result in what we have
seen – long protracted negotiations where acceding countries have had no option but
to make 'WTO plus' concessions.
In our proposal, we are therefore asking that the rule of law be introduced on
accession through the establishment of a panel of experts so that applicant countries
have legal protection in the event that a party feels that the terms of reference of a
working party have been exceeded.
Many WTO Members have asked why small vulnerable economies seek such
provisions. The answer is that in a negotiation, where one party is fundamentally
disadvantaged, then it is the rule of law that protects those which are weak and
disadvantaged. This created a relatively level playing field. This is one of the
greatest achievements of this organisation and the proponents of this proposal are
asking that this protection be also extended to acceding countries."
33.
The representative of Vanuatu said the issue of accessions was very important to the Pacific
island acceding countries Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu. He supported the panel system that was being
proposed in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/17. He noted that his country had been in accession
negotiations since 1995. He also highlighted the July 2002 Decision on LDC accession and the
Livingstone Declaration on LDCs. The WTO, he said, should be for all countries whether they were
big or small.
34.
The representative of Samoa expressed support for the proposal. He understood that the
proposal was a reflection of the acceding countries' concerns. He said Samoa was a vulnerable, small
economy and an LDC with a population of only 180,000. Samoa had started its accession process
in 1998. He believed that, especially at bilateral levels, some Members of Samoa's Working Party
continued to request or make demands on tariff binding, quotas and services where he felt his
delegation had responded reasonably. He believed that the adoption by the WTO of a decision on
LDC accession was not enough. The decision still did not reduce the problems faced by small
vulnerable economies and LDC acceding countries. This, he said, was because of the lack of basic
rules governing the process to ensure that it was fair and equitable.
35.
The representative of Tonga said his country hoped to become the 150th WTO Member at the
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. He said that Tonga had been in the accession process for ten
years and was conscious of the problems for acceding countries. Therefore, he supported the
proposal.
36.
The representative of Barbados supported the proposal and thanked the acceding countries for
their practical perspective for why such a proposal was needed.
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 9
37.
The Chairman said that he was not aware the acceding countries were experiencing so many
difficulties.
38.
The representative of the United States said her delegation had slightly different views on this
proposal than those on the SPS and the TBT proposal. She agreed that some of the accessions of
LDCs and others had taken a long time. However, she said the WTO had recent experiences where a
number of small economies and even LDCs had managed the accession process quite well and quite
rapidly. She mentioned the accession of Cape Verde as an example and said that although these
negotiations were not done yet, the process was going smoothly. She said her delegation was pleased
that the discussions with Tonga where almost done and hoped to be able to conclude them very soon.
She was concerned that the general sense conveyed in the paper was that the demands placed on
accession countries were unreasonable. She believed that adoption of WTO rules by those countries
which wished to join the institution was not a demand, it was just the reality. She said it was
incumbent on the Members of the institution to try to come into conformity with these rules.
Although this process was challenging, significant amounts of technical assistance is provided to
acceding countries. She believed small economies were trying to have a similar decision as that
agreed for LDC accession. She was not sure this was necessary as there were only a few small
economies which were not already WTO Members. She thought it would be better to deal practically,
one by one, with the concerns that individual countries had, rather than addressing them in a generic
way. She noted that Members had heard from some countries that had recently acceded that the
process of accession negotiations actually helped make their economies more able to use trade as a
tool for development and encouraged both domestic and foreign investment. She was concerned
about trying to radically change the accession process. She acknowledged that there was no perfect
system but the current accession process permitted wide participation and full transparency in its
operation and was working to assist many countries to develop the trade capacity and participate more
fully in the multilateral trade system.
39.
The representative of the Switzerland said she agreed with the core objective of the paper.
However, she believed that the proposed panel mechanism could complicate the accession process
and may not be effective.
40.
The representative of Japan said he understood some of the problems that the small acceding
economies were going through in their accession processes. However, he disagreed with the proposal
because it created a general exemption in the accession process for a group of countries on the basis
of being a small economy. He said it would be better to deal with the problems faced by small
acceding countries on an individual basis.
41.
The Chairman said he understood that a long accession process could lead to high levels of
frustration. He said that if the current proposal was not acceptable, alternative ways would need to be
explored to alleviate some of the problems faced by small, acceding countries.
42.
The representative of the European Communities said he agreed that difficulties with the
accession process might not be a generic issue but one that would be better dealt with by focusing on
individual accession processes. He requested further clarification on how the proponents intended to
operationalize the statement in the proposal regarding giving appropriate consideration to the
situations of small acceding economies, and on the functioning of the panel mechanism envisaged in
the proposal. He noted that there was already a decision on the accession of LDCs and that he was
not sure whether a similar type of decision was necessary for small economies.
43.
The representative of Bahamas said she agreed with the Chairman that an alternative needed
to be found to alleviate the problems of accession to the WTO by small economies. Bahamas was in
the process of accession and she said that this was an important issue that should addressed as
acceding countries should not be put in a difficult position when it came to their accession.
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 10
44.
The representative of the Solomon Islands noted that among the two acceding Pacific island
states, two were LDCs. He said the objective of the proposals was to introduce the rule of law to the
WTO accession process. The proponents considered that a panel process was appropriate since this
was the mechanism used in the WTO for the settlement of disputes. 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 the 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. He went on to say that no other LDC made offers even remotely close
to those of Vanuatu during the Uruguay Round. In the services sector, the commitments made by
Vanuatu were far more extensive than those made by other WTO Members. Vanuatu 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
the current accession process allowed for the extraction of concessions from acceding countries that
would not otherwise be possible in a rules based system. Nevertheless, the proponents were willing to
look at other alternatives in case the proposed panel process was not acceptable.
45.
The representative of Brazil sympathised with the problems of small acceding economies.
However, he did not believe that the proposed panel process was a good way to deal with those
problems. One of the differences that he saw with the other three proposals was that the problems in
the other three proposals were clearly related to the size of the economy and the ensuing capacity
constraints. The proposals on accessions did not deal with a problem that was exclusive of small
economies. He noted that panels in the WTO were a mechanism that was established in the DSU to
enforce compliance with written rules and not to diffuse principles of fairness or equity. Another
issue concerned transparency, which he believed, acceding countries should bring to the attention of
Members when unreasonable demands were presented to them. It was also important to help
acceding countries by providing technical assistance. He mentioned that the delegation of Brazil had
just hosted representatives from all Portuguese speaking developing countries in Geneva for a two
week course on the WTO and negotiations.
46.
The Chairman said that most Members understood the concerns of the small acceding
countries and the CTD provided a good forum where these concerns could be aired. Most of these
issues regarding accession were dealt with at the bilateral level. However, when problems were not
resolved bilaterally, it was important to raise them to the multilateral level. He suggested that in cases
of difficulties, acceding countries could look into using good offices, including those of the
Secretariat, as a way of resolving differences. He noted that small economies could also suffer from
resource constraints in their negotiations and that this had to be recognized.
47.
The representative of Vanuatu supported the statement made by the delegation of the
Solomon Islands. He said that there were two important issues in the proposal. One issue was that
since accession negotiations were done bilaterally, it may not be known to other Members when
unreasonable demands were being placed on the table. The other issue concerned the rule of law as
one player in the process could also become the referee. He said these issues had been raised in
several fora and, that unless a pragmatic solution was found, small economies could not join the
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 11
multilateral trading system. He added that for the Pacific island states, acceding to the WTO would
bring tangible benefits that would greatly enhance their development programmes.
48.
The Dedicated Session took note of the statements made.
F.
DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT IN DEDICATED SESSION
TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL (WT/COMTD/SE/W/19)
49.
The Chairman said that since the last Dedicated Session a series of informal consultations had
been held to gather the views of Members on the Dedicated Session's draft report to the General
Council. Discussions had been held as well on a paragraph which could be used in a draft Hong Kong
Ministerial Declaration. Regarding the draft report to the General Council, informal consultations
were held on 28 October 2005. He said that in his absence, consultations were held by a
representative of the Swiss delegation. He expressed his appreciation to her for a job well done.
Following these consultations the draft report was circulated as document W/COMTD/SE/W/19.
50.
The Chairman said he had recently held a consultation with a small group of interested
Members to clarify certain aspects of the report. These consultations were held on 11 November 2005
and a revised version of the report was circulated as document WT/COMTD/SE/W/19/Rev.1. This
revision contained only minor changes to the last two sentences of paragraph 16. The Chairman noted
that paragraph 14 of the report was still in brackets since it was meant to reflect the 13th Dedicated
Session. He asked if the brackets could be lifted.
51.
It was so decided.
52.
He then asked if the report could be adopted.
53.
The representative of Peru said that the reference in paragraph 14 should be changed to read
WT/COMTD/SE/W/19/Rev.1.
54.
The report was adopted as amended.
55.
The Chairman said the Report of the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated
Session to the General Council would be circulated as document WT/COMTD/SE/4.
56.
Regarding the text on the Work Programme on Small Economies for inclusion in the draft
Ministerial Declaration, the Chairman said that consultations were held on the text of this paragraph
on 19 October 2005. After an informal consensus was reached on this draft it was sent to the Council
Division of the Secretariat as requested by Ambassador Amina Mohamed Chairman of the General
Council. He explained there was a need to hold further consultations on 11 November 2005 when
Members proposed two minor stylistic changes to make the text of the Ministerial Declaration better
coincide with the Dedicated Session's report and with the mandate in paragraph 35 of the Doha
Ministerial Declaration. The Chairman said that having just adopted the Dedicated Session's report to
the General Council, the brackets around the words "agree to" in the text were no longer necessary.
He suggested, however, to leave the brackets around the date "31 December 2006" as this
corresponded to the end date for all work. This was the text that would be forwarded to Ambassador
Amina Mohamed, Chairman of the General Council, for inclusion in the draft Ministerial Declaration.
57.
The representative of St. Lucia said the Doha Declaration in its paragraph 35 made it
explicitly clear that it was not the intention to create a sub-category of Members. Therefore, she
found that the sub-sentence in the third line of the text on small economies for the Hong Kong
Ministerial Declaration was superfluous. She said the singling-out and unnecessary repetition of this
WT/COMTD/SE/M/13
Page 12
idea could be misinterpreted as casting doubt on the sincerity of Members or it may imply
ambivalence about the treatment of small economies.
58.
The representative of Barbados explained that the text had been the result of extensive
consultations and that small economies had agreed to the text in a spirit of compromise.
59.
The representative of Surinam supported the texts being presented for adoption and noted his
delegation's intention to continue to actively participate in the Work Programme on Small Economies.
60.
The Chairman proposed that Members agree on the revised text of the paragraph on the Work
Programme on Small Economies for inclusion in the draft Ministerial Declaration.
61.
It was so agreed.
62.
The meeting was adjourned.
__________