WORLD TRADE
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
11 May 2009
ORGANIZATION
(09-2324)
Committee on Trade and Development
Dedicated Session
WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES
Compilation paper prepared by the Secretariat
Revision
I.
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 5
II.
MANDATE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................... 6
A.
PARAGRAPH 35 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION – WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1
(20 NOVEMBER 2001) ................................................................................................................. 6
B.
PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES FRAMEWORK AND
PROCEDURES – WT/L/447 (1 MARCH 2002) ................................................................................. 6
C.
PARAGRAPH 1.D OF THE 1 AUGUST:
D.
PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION - WT/MIN(05)/DEC
(18 DECEMBER 2005) .................................................................................................................. 7
D.1
REFERENCES TO SMALL ECONOMIES IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE SECTION ON NAMA IN
THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ............................................................................ 7
D.2
REFERENCES TO SMALL ECONOMIES IN THE SERVICES – ANNEX C OF THE HONG KONG
MINISTERIAL DECLARATION........................................................................................................ 8
E.
OTHER TEXTS OFTEN CITED BY SMALL ECONOMIES IN THE 1 AUGUST 2004 GENERAL
COUNCIL DECISION – ANNEX B NAMA FRAMEWORK – WT/L/579 (2 AUGUST 2004) ................... 8
III.
DECISIONS .............................................................................................................................. 9
A.
COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED SESSION ON SMALL
ECONOMIES ................................................................................................................................. 9
1.
Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small Economies in
Meeting their Obligations under the Agreements on SPS Measures, TBT and
TRIPS - WT/COMTD/SE/5 (3 October 2006)........................................................................ 9
B.
COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ................................................ 11
1.
Decision of the General Council of 27 July 2007 - WT/L/691 (31 July 2007)
Based on the Draft Decision of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures of 13 July 2007 (G/SCM/120). ............................................................................... 11
IV.
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE - SPECIAL SESSION ............................................ 18
A.
CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT ................................................................................................... 18
1.
Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 (6 December 2008) ......... 18
B.
HISTORIC EVOLUTION ................................................................................................................ 23
2004 GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION - WT/L/579 ................. 7
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 2
1.
Overview of Small Economies' Positions on the Agriculture Negotiations –
JOB(05)/161 (27 July 2005) .................................................................................................... 23
2.
Proposal by the Small, Vulnerable Economies on Market Access in Agriculture –
TN/AG/GEN/11 (11 November 2005).................................................................................... 24
3.
Report by the Chairman to the TNC – TN/AG/21 (28 November 2005), also
Annex A of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration ........................................................... 24
4.
Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs – Room Document (4 May 2006) ......................... 24
5.
Contribution by the SVEs on the Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs –
JOB(06)/164 (31 May 2006).................................................................................................... 26
6.
Chairman's Revised Consolidated Reference Paper on Possible Modalities on
Market Access – (9 June 2006) .............................................................................................. 26
7.
Revised Consolidated Reference Paper on Modalities on Market Access –
Contribution on the Treatment of SVEs – JOB(06)/196 (19 June 2006) ........................... 27
8.
Draft Possible Modalities on Agriculture – TN/AG/W/3 (12 July 2006)............................ 27
9.
Submission on the Treatment of Small Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) –
JOB(07)/47 (11 April 2007) .................................................................................................... 27
10.
Communication from the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Special
Session - Second Instalment (25 May 2007) .......................................................................... 29
11.
Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4 (1 August 2007) ......................... 29
12.
Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.1 (8 February 2008) .......... 34
13.
Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.2 (19 May 2008) ................. 39
14.
Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.3 (10 July 2008) ................. 43
15.
G-33 Proposal on the Treatment of SSM provided to the SVEs - TN/AG/GEN/29
(10 February 2009).................................................................................................................. 48
V.
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS FOR
NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS................................................................................. 50
A.
CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT ................................................................................................... 50
1.
Fourth Revision of Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural Market Access –
TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3 (6 December 2008) ............................................................................. 50
B.
HISTORIC EVOLUTION ................................................................................................................ 51
1.
Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Treatment of Small, Vulnerable
Economies in the NAMA Negotiations - TN/MA/W/66 (11 November 2005).................... 51
2.
Progress Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee –
TN/MA/16 (24 November 2005), also Annex B of the Hong Kong Ministerial
Declaration .............................................................................................................................. 52
3.
NAMA – Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Criteria and
Treatment of SVEs, submission by the SVEs – (1 May 2006)............................................. 52
4.
Small and Vulnerable Economies - Text Proposal for the Chairman of NAMA
by the Delegations of Costa Rica and Uruguay – Room Document (30 May 2006) .......... 53
5.
NAMA 11 - Non-Paper – Small Vulnerable Economies – (30 May 2006).......................... 54
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 3
6.
Proposal on Small, Vulnerable Economies by Norway – Room Document
(6 June 2006)............................................................................................................................ 54
7.
Treatment of Small, Vulnerable Economies in the NAMA Negotiations, Proposal
by the SVEs – (15 June 2006) ................................................................................................. 55
8.
Towards NAMA Modalities – TN/MA/W/80 (19 July 2006)............................................... 56
9.
Draft NAMA Modalities – JOB(07)/126 (17 July 2007) ...................................................... 57
10.
Submission by Small, Vulnerable Economies on Modalities to Apply in
Non-Agricultural Market Access – TN/MA/W/100 (17 January 2008) ............................ 59
11.
Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural Market Access - TN/MA/W/103
(8 February 2008).................................................................................................................... 60
12.
Submission by Small, Vulnerable Economies on Modalities Applicable to NonAgricultural Market Access - JOB(08)/26 (11 April 2008) .................................................. 62
13.
Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural Market Access Second Revision TN/MA/W/103/Rev.1 (20 May 2008) ..................................................................................... 63
14.
Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural Market Access – TN/MA/W/103/Rev.2
(10 July 2008) .......................................................................................................................... 64
VI.
COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES SPECIAL SESSION ......................................... 66
1.
Services – Information Note (November 2005) .................................................................... 66
2.
Outline of an SVE position on Possible Elements of a Services Text (23 January
2008) ......................................................................................................................................... 66
VII.
WORKING PARTY ON DOMESTIC REGULATION ..................................................... 69
1.
Services - Trade-Related Concerns of Small, Vulnerable Economies in the
Working Party on Domestic Regulation - JOB(06)/66/Rev.2 (10 July 2006)..................... 69
VIII.
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES ................................................................................. 72
1.
Fisheries Subsidies - TN/RL/W/136 (14 July 2003).............................................................. 72
2.
WTO Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines – Architecture on Fisheries Subsidies
Disciplines - TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2 (13 September 2005) ................................................... 72
3.
Special and Differential Treatment in the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations:
Views of the Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - TN/RL/W/210/Rev.2
(22 June 2007).......................................................................................................................... 73
4.
Drafting Proposal on Issues Relating to Article III.4 ("Special and Differential
Treatment of Developing Country Members") of the Fisheries Subsidies Annex
to the SCM Agreement as Proposed by the Chair in TN/RL/W/213 TN/RL/GEN/158 (22 May 2008) ............................................................................................ 76
5.
Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - Statement on Key Aspects Of Article III
of the Fisheries Subsidies Annex- TN/RL/W/226/Rev.5 (22 September 2008) .................. 77
IX.
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON TRADE FACILITATION ................................................. 79
1.
Regional Approaches to Trade Facilitation: Enquiry Points TN/TF/W/129/Rev.2 (10 March 2008)................................................................................... 79
X.
COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ..................... 80
A.
HISTORIC EVOLUTION ............................................................................................................... 80
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 4
1.
Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures - G/SCM/W/535 and Add.1 (12 April 2006 and 20 July
2006) ......................................................................................................................................... 80
2.
Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 and 537) – JOB(07)/49 (18 April 2007) .......... 80
3.
Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 and 537) – JOB(07)/50 (19 April 2007) .......... 85
4.
Chairman's Proposal for the Text of a Draft Decision – JOB(07)/78 (6 June
2007) ......................................................................................................................................... 87
5.
Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Decision of the Committee of 13 July 2007– G/SCM/120 (17 July 2007) ........................... 91
XI.
AID FOR TRADE TASK FORCE ........................................................................................ 98
1.
Aid for Trade - WT/AFT/W/18 (15 June 2006) .................................................................... 98
XII.
COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED SESSION
ON SMALL ECONOMIES ................................................................................................. 102
1.
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade: Designation of a Regional Body –
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15 (18 October 2005) .......................................................................... 102
2.
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures:
Designation of a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/16 (18 October 2005) ................ 102
3.
Accession to the WTO - WT/COMTD/SE/W/17 (18 October 2005) ................................ 102
4.
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement: Designation of a
Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/18 (18 October 2005) ............................................. 103
5.
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade: Designation of a Regional Body –
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.1 (10 April 2006) .................................................................... 103
6.
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures:
Designation of a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.1 (10 April 2006) .......... 104
7.
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement: Designation of a
Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.1 (10 April 2006) ....................................... 104
8.
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade: Designation of a Regional Body –
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.2 (18 July 2006)...................................................................... 104
9.
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures:
Designation of a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.2 (18 July 2006) ............ 105
10.
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement: Designation of a
Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.2 (18 July 2006)......................................... 106
11.
Draft Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small Economies in
Meeting their Obligations under the Agreements on SPS Measures, TBT and
TRIPS (27 September 2006) ................................................................................................. 107
12.
Draft Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small Economies in
Meeting their Obligations under the Agreements on SPS Measures, TBT and
TRIPS (28 September 2006) ................................................................................................. 108
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 5
I.
INTRODUCTION
Paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration1 instructs the CTD in Dedicated
Session to monitor progress of the small economies' proposals in the negotiating and other bodies. At
its Fifteenth Dedicated Session on 20 July 2006, Members requested that the Secretariat prepare a
note that would help the CTD in Dedicated Session to monitor work currently underway in WTO and
in the negotiating groups. The Secretariat's paper is based on the compilation paper that had been
prepared by a group of small economies2 and incorporates the reports and draft texts by the various
Chairs of the negotiating groups.
The present document attempts to reflect the current state of play of the small economies'
issues discussed so far in the negotiating and other bodies, prior to the Ministerial-level meeting at the
end of July 2008. This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and
does not prejudice the right of any Member to raise other concerns or views related to the Work
Programme on Small Economies.
1
2
WT/MIN(05)/DEC.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 6
II.
MANDATE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A.
PARAGRAPH 35 OF
(20 NOVEMBER 2001)
THE
DOHA
MINISTERIAL
DECLARATION
–
WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1
We agree to a work programme, under the auspices of the General Council, to
examine issues relating to the trade of small economies. The objective of this work is
to frame responses to the trade-related issues identified for the fuller integration of
small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system, and not to create a
sub-category of WTO Members. The General Council shall review the work
programme and make recommendations for action to the Fifth Session of the
Ministerial Conference.
PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURES
WT/L/447 (1 MARCH 2002)
In pursuance of this mandate, the Work Programme shall be undertaken in
accordance with the following framework and procedures:
(a)
The Work Programme shall remain under the overall responsibility of
the General Council.
(b)
The General Council shall have the Work Programme on Small
Economies (WPSE) as a standing item on its agenda.
(c)
The objective of this work is to frame responses to the trade-related
issues identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies
into the multilateral trading system.
(d)
The General Council shall instruct the CTD to have a programme of
work on small economies which will be conducted in dedicated sessions
of the CTD.
(e)
The CTD shall report regularly to the General Council on the progress
of work in the dedicated sessions.
(f)
The Chairperson of the regular CTD shall also be the Chair for the
dedicated sessions of the CTD.
(g)
The dedicated sessions of the CTD shall have an agreed calendar of
meetings to complete the work under its mandate.
(h)
The CTD will hold informal meetings as necessary with a view to
assisting the formal process in the dedicated sessions of the CTD.
(i)
In accordance with the outcome of the programme of work in the CTD,
the General Council shall, as appropriate, direct relevant subsidiary
bodies to frame responses to the trade-related issues identified by the
CTD with a view to making recommendations for action to the Fifth
Session of the Ministerial Conference as mandated. This does not
prejudice the right of Members to submit for consideration proposals
relating to the concerns of small economies to the relevant WTO bodies.
–
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 7
(j)
As and when necessary, the dedicated sessions of the CTD will work in
collaboration with relevant subsidiary bodies.
(k)
Members are urged to make their own contributions to the work of the
CTD under its programme of work. The General Council shall instruct
the WTO Secretariat to provide relevant information and factual
analysis, inter alia,
(i)
on the impact of WTO rules on Small Economies;
(ii)
on the constraints faced by Small Economies as well as their
shortfalls in institutional and administrative capacities, including
in the area of human resources;
(iii)
on the effects of Trade Liberalization on Small Economies.
The CTD will also request information and analysis from other agencies
and bodies that carry out work on small economies.
PARAGRAPH 1.D OF THE 1 AUGUST: 2004 GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION - WT/L/579
The trade-related issues identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable
economies into the multilateral trading system, should also be addressed, without
creating a sub-category of Members, as part of a work programme, as mandated in
paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
- WT/MIN(05)/DEC (18 DECEMBER
2005)
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.
D.1
REFERENCES TO SMALL ECONOMIES IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE SECTION ON NAMA IN THE
HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
PARAGRAPH 21
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 sub-category of WTO Members.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 8
D.2
REFERENCES TO SMALL ECONOMIES IN THE SERVICES
MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
– ANNEX C OF THE HONG KONG
PARAGRAPH 8
Due consideration shall be given to proposals on trade-related concerns of small
economies.
OTHER TEXTS OFTEN CITED BY SMALL ECONOMIES IN THE 1 AUGUST 2004 GENERAL COUNCIL
DECISION – ANNEX B NAMA FRAMEWORK – WT/L/579 (2 AUGUST 2004)
PARAGRAPH 6
We furthermore agree that, as an exception, participants with a binding coverage of
non-agricultural tariff lines of less than [35] per cent would be exempt from making
tariff reductions through the formula. Instead, we expect them to bind [100] per cent
of non-agricultural tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed the overall
average of bound tariffs for all developing countries after full implementation of
current concessions.
PARAGRAPH 8
We agree that developing-country participants shall have longer implementation
periods for tariff reductions. In addition, they shall be given the following flexibility:
(b)
applying less than formula cuts to up to [10] per cent of the tariff lines
provided that the cuts are no less than half the formula cuts and that these
tariff lines do not exceed [10] per cent of the total value of a Member's
imports; or
(c)
keeping, as an exception, tariff lines unbound, or not applying formula cuts
for up to [5] per cent of tariff lines provided they do not exceed [5] per cent of
the total value of a Member's imports.
PARAGRAPH 9
We agree that least-developed country participants shall not be required to apply the
formula nor participate in the sectorial approach, however, as part of their
contribution to this round of negotiations, they are expected to substantially increase
their level of binding commitments.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 9
III.
DECISIONS
A.
COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED SESSION ON SMALL ECONOMIES
1.
Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small Economies in Meeting their
Obligations under the Agreements on SPS Measures, TBT and TRIPS3 WT/COMTD/SE/5 (3 October 2006)
147.
In paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration,4 Ministers established a work
programme under the auspices of the General Council to examine issues relating to the trade of
small economies with the objective of framing responses to the trade-related issues identified
for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system,
without creating a sub-category of WTO Members.
148.
On 1 March 2002, the General Council took note of a framework and procedures for
the conduct of the Work Programme on Small Economies5 and instructed the Committee on
Trade and Development (CTD) to conduct this programme of work in Dedicated Sessions and
to report regularly on the progress of its work to the General Council. This mandate was
reaffirmed by the 1 August 2004 Decision of the General Council.6 At the Hong Kong
Ministerial Conference, Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to this Work Programme and
urged Members to adopt specific measures that would facilitate the fuller integration of small
economies into the multilateral trading system.7
149.
In discussions in the CTD in Dedicated Session, the proponents of small economies
identified, as one of the trade-related issues affecting the fuller integration of their economies
into the multilateral trading system, their limited administrative capacities to implement
complex rules and procedures and, in particular, to fulfil their obligations under the Agreements
on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
150.
In
documents
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15,
WT/COMTD/SE/W/16
and
WT/COMTD/SE/W/18, the proponents suggested that they be allowed to designate regional
bodies to assist them in the implementation of their obligations in the SPS, TBT and TRIPS
Agreements and sought explicit approval from Members to do so. The proposals underwent
two revisions8 to take into account the concerns raised by other Members in the Dedicated
Session and at informal and/or formal meetings of the SPS and TBT Committees and the
TRIPS Council.
151.
Reports from the Chairpersons of these bodies were sent to the Chairperson of the
CTD in Dedicated Session. The proponents of small economies also clarified that it was not
their intention to modify, amend or alter the balance of rights and obligations contained in the
SPS, TBT or TRIPS Agreements and that they, as Members, remain ultimately responsible for
adhering to the obligations they contain.
3
The General Council, at its meeting of 10 October 2006, agreed to the recommendations and
understandings contained in paragraph 6 of the report.
4
WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1.
5
WT/L/447.
6
WT/L/579.
7
WT/MIN(05)/DEC, paragraph 41.
8
The
latest
versions
have
been
circulated
as
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.2;
WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.2 and WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.2.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 10
152.
On the basis of the discussions that have been held on this matter, the CTD in
Dedicated Session considers that the use by small, vulnerable economies of regional bodies to
provide technical support and assistance as necessary could help them implement their
obligations in the areas of SPS, TBT and TRIPS, and thereby facilitate their fuller integration
into the multilateral trading system. Accordingly, and in pursuance of the provisions of
paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, the CTD in Dedicated Session
recommends that the General Council agrees that small economies are allowed to use such
regional bodies to assist them in the implementation of their obligations under the SPS, TBT
and TRIPS Agreements. It also recommends that Members and the WTO, within its
competence, when providing technical and financial assistance to support small, vulnerable
economies in fulfilling their rights and obligations under the agreements concerned, shall
consider the advantages of providing that assistance to the regional body where such exists. It
is understood that individual Members benefiting from these recommendations will continue to
be legally responsible and accountable for their individual notifications and other obligations
under these Agreements. This recommendation is without prejudice both to the identification
of other specific measures in due course to facilitate the fuller integration of small economies
into the multilateral trading system and to the use of regional bodies as described in this report
by other developing country Members.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 11
COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
2.
Decision of the General Council of 27 July 2007 - WT/L/691 (31 July 2007) Based on the
Draft Decision of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of 13 July
2007 (G/SCM/120)
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
Decision of 27 July 2007
The General Council,
Having regard to Articles IV:1 and 2 and IX:1 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization ("WTO Agreement") and Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement");
Recalling that the Members of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
("SCM Committee" or "Committee"), as directed by the Ministerial Conference9 have granted,
pursuant to the procedures set forth in document G/SCM/39, extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the
SCM Agreement of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement for the
elimination of export subsidies, in respect of certain programmes of certain developing country
Members;
Noting the proposals submitted by those developing country Members to extend the
procedures contained in G/SCM/39;10
Noting the terms of paragraph 5 of this Decision;
Recognizing the economic, financial and development needs, as well as the capacity and
administrative constraints, of those Members in implementing their commitments pursuant to the
SCM Agreement in respect of the elimination of export subsidies;
On the basis of the commitment of those Members to eliminate the export subsidies in
question not later than 31 December 2015, with no requests for extension beyond those foreseen
pursuant to this Decision;
Decides to adopt the following procedures.
PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS PURSUANT
TO ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE SCM AGREEMENT OF THE TRANSITION
PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 27.2(b) OF THE SCM AGREEMENT
FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS
The SCM Committee shall follow the procedures set forth below in respect of the
continuation of extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement ("SCM Article 27.4") of
9
Ministerial Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, (WT/MIN(01)/17),
paragraph 10.6.
10
See documents G/SCM/W/535 and G/SCM/W/537 and addenda.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 12
the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement for certain programmes, identified
in the Annex.11
1.
Mechanism for continuation of extension
(a)
A Member that wishes to seek a continuation, for calendar year 2008, of the
extension under SCM Article 27.4 for a programme listed in the Annex, shall submit
a request to that effect to the SCM Committee not later than 3 September 2007. The
request also shall include a reference to the WTO document containing the
corresponding updating notification covering calendar year 2006, which the Member
shall have submitted to the SCM Committee pursuant to 1(d) of G/SCM/39.12
(b)
Not later than 26 October 2007, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to
continue the extensions, for calendar year 2008, for programmes listed in the Annex
in respect of which requests have been submitted pursuant to 1(a) and for which the
Committee has verified, in its annual review conducted pursuant to G/SCM/3913, that
the transparency and standstill requirements under G/SCM/39 were fulfilled during
2006.
(c)
As provided for in SCM Article 27.4, the continuation of extensions by the
SCM Committee pursuant to these procedures shall be subject to annual reviews in
the form of consultations between the Committee and the Members receiving
continuations of extensions. These annual reviews shall be conducted on the basis of
annual updating notifications from the Members in question, as referred to in 2(a).
The purpose of the annual reviews shall be to verify that the transparency and
standstill requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.
(d)
During the period 2008-2012, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to
continue the extensions pursuant to these procedures, subject to verification through
annual reviews as provided for in 1(c) that the transparency and standstill
requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.14 The "last authorized period"
referred to in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall not extend beyond
31 December 2013, and the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last
sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall end not later than 31 December 2015.
(e)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures shall take,
from 1 January 2008, the necessary internal steps with a view to eliminating export
subsidies under the programme before the end of the final two-year phase-out period
provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4. These steps shall include
consultations with relevant government bodies and organisations and any necessary
technical and/or legal assessments. In addition, from 1 January 2008 and in no case
later than 31 December 2009, the Member shall notify each beneficiary under the
programme indicating that no export subsidies within the meaning of
11
The programmes eligible for continuations of extensions under these procedures are programmes
providing export subsidies in the form of full or partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes for
which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under SCM Article 27.4 for calendar
year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.
12
At the regular meeting of the Committee in April 2007, these Members were reminded to submit
their updating notifications by 30 June 2007.
13
The procedures in G/SCM/39 shall cease to be effective upon completion of this 2007 annual review.
14
This extension mechanism shall cease to be effective upon completion in 2012 of the annual review
by the Committee to continue the extensions for calendar year 2013, such that there will be no basis for requests
for extension beyond those foreseen in this Decision.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 13
SCM Article 3.1(a) will be granted or maintained beyond the end of calendar
year 2015.
2.
3.
(f)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures shall
provide, for transparency purposes, an action plan for eliminating export subsidies
under the programme, as an integral part of the annual updating notification
submitted for the annual review to be conducted in 2010.15 As part of this review, the
SCM Committee shall undertake a mid-period assessment of each programme for
which it has continued an extension under these procedures. During this mid-period
assessment, the SCM Committee shall take stock of the steps undertaken as of that
point by the notifying Member pursuant to 1(e), and shall discuss the action plan
provided by the Member.
(g)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures may
request the WTO Secretariat to provide technical assistance for eliminating export
subsidies under the programme.
Transparency
(a)
The annual updating notifications shall follow the agreed format for subsidy
notifications under SCM Article 25 (found in G/SCM/6/Rev.1). Beginning with the
updating notifications covering calendar year 2008, notifying Members also shall
provide information regarding the actions they have taken pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).
(b)
During the annual reviews by the SCM Committee referred to in 1(c), notifying
Members can be requested by other Members to provide additional detail and
clarification with a view to maintaining transparency in respect of the scope, coverage
and intensity of benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes in question16 and the
form of the subsidies provided thereunder; and in respect of the actions taken
pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f). Any information provided in response to such requests
shall be considered part of the notified information.
(c)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures shall
ensure transparency in respect of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in
the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 by submitting updating notifications under
paragraph 2(a), which shall be subject to annual review by the Committee.
Standstill
(a)
15
Through the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in
SCM Article 27.4, the programmes for which extensions are continued under these
procedures shall not be modified so as to make them more favourable than they were
as at 1 September 2001, as specified in the notified information previously submitted
pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39. The continuation of an expiring
programme without modification shall not be deemed to violate standstill.
The action plan shall indicate how the Member intends to eliminate export subsidies under the
programme not later than the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last sentence of
SCM Article 27.4, including information as to legislative changes, administrative amendments and/or other
procedures as may be necessary, and whether any of these actions have been undertaken or are in the process of
being undertaken, including how the individual beneficiaries have been notified pursuant to 1(e).
16
The scope, coverage and intensity of benefits of the programmes in question will be determined on
the basis of the legal instruments underlying the programmes.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 14
(b)
4.
The verification of standstill in respect of the scope, coverage and intensity of
benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes shall be based on the notified
information referred to in 1(c), 2(a), 2(b) and 3(a).
Product graduation on the basis of export competitiveness
Notwithstanding these procedures, Articles 27.5 and 27.6 shall apply in respect of export
subsidies for which extensions are continued pursuant to these procedures.
5.
Members listed in Annex VII(b) which reserved rights pursuant to the procedures in
G/SCM/39
(a)
This Decision does not prejudge rights of Annex VII Members.
(b)
If, during the period 2008-2015, the per capita GNP of a Member that reserved rights
under paragraph 6(b) of G/SCM/3917 reaches the level provided for in Annex VII(b)
of the SCM Agreement such that the Member is no longer included in Annex VII(b),
that Member shall be able to make use of these procedures as from the date at which
its per capita GNP reaches that level and for the remainder of that period. The
effective date for the standstill requirement referred to in 3(a) shall be the year in
which that Member's GNP per capita reaches the level provided for in Annex VII(b)
such that it is no longer included in Annex VII(b).
17
The Members that reserved rights, and the programmes in respect of which these rights were
reserved, are identified in documents G/SCM/N/74/BOL & Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/74/HND, G/SCM/N/74/KEN,
and G/SCM/N/74/LKA.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 15
ANNEX
LIST OF PROGRAMMES ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS
UNDER THE PROCEDURES18, AND DOCUMENT REFERENCES FOR THE
EXTENSION DECISIONS BY THE SCM COMMITTEE
COVERING CALENDAR YEAR 2007
Antigua & Barbuda
 Fiscal Incentive Act Cap 172 (December 1975) (G/SCM/50/Add.4)
 Free Trade and Processing Zone Act No. 12 of 1994 (G/SCM/51/Add.4)
Barbados
 Fiscal Incentive Programme (G/SCM/52/Add.4)
 Export Allowance (G/SCM/53/Add.4)
 Research & Development Allowance (G/SCM/54/Add.4)
 International Business Incentives (G/SCM/55/Add.4)
 Societies With Restricted Liability (G/SCM/56/Add.4)
Belize




Fiscal Incentives Act (G/SCM/57/Add.4)
Export Processing Zone Act (G/SCM/58/Add. 4)
Commercial Free Zone Act (G/SCM/59/Add.4)
Conditional Duty Exemptions Facility under Treaty of Chaguaramas (G/SCM/60/Add.4)
Costa Rica
 Free Zone Regime (G/SCM/61/Add.4)
 Inward Processing Regime (G/SCM/62/Add.4)
Dominica
 Fiscal Incentives Programme (G/SCM/63/Add.4)
18
Programmes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under
SCM Article 27.4 for calendar year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39. It is recalled that the
eligibility criteria in G/SCM/39 on the basis of which the original extension decisions pursuant to those
procedures (for calendar year 2003) were taken for the listed programmes were as follows (footnotes omitted):
"Programmes eligible for extension pursuant to these procedures, and for which Members shall
therefore grant extensions for calendar year 2003 [...], are export subsidy programmes (i) in the form of full or
partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes, (ii) which were in existence not later than 1 September
2001, and (iii) which are provided by developing country Members (iv) whose share of world merchandise
export trade was not greater than 0.10 per cent, (v) whose total Gross National Income ("GNI") for the year
2000 as published by the World Bank was at or below US$20 billion, (vi) and who are otherwise eligible to
request an extension pursuant to Article 27.4, and (vii) in respect of which these procedures are followed."
It is further recalled that, in respect of the above eligibility criteria, G/SCM/39 also provided that:
"The criteria set forth in these procedures are solely and strictly for the purpose of determining whether
Members are eligible to invoke these procedures. Members of the Committee agree that these criteria have no
precedential value or relevance, direct or indirect, for any other purpose."
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 16
Dominican Republic
 Law No. 8-90 to "Promote the Establishment of New Free Zones and Expand Existing Ones"
(G/SCM/64/Add.4)
El Salvador
 Export Processing Zones and Marketing Act, as amended (G/SCM/65/Add.4)
Fiji



Short-Term Export Profit Deduction (G/SCM/66/Add.4)
Export Processing Factories/Export Processing Zones Scheme (G/SCM/67/Add.4)
The Income Tax Act (Film Making and Audio Visual Incentive Amendment Decree 2000)
(G/SCM/68/Add.4)
Grenada
 Fiscal Incentives Act No. 41 of 1974 (G/SCM/69/Add.4)
 Statutory Rules and Orders No. 37 of 1999 (G/SCM/70/Add.4)
 Qualified Enterprises Act No. 18 of 1978 (G/SCM/71/Add.4)
Guatemala
 Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for Companies
under Special Customs Regimes (G/SCM/72/Add.4)
 Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production
Process Relating to Activities of Managers and Users of Free Zones (G/SCM/73/Add.4)
 Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production
Process of Commercial and Industrial Enterprises Operating in the Industrial and Free Trade
Zone (G/SCM/74/Add.4)
Jamaica
 Export Industry Encouragement Act (G/SCM/75/Add.4)
 Jamaica Export Free Zone Act (G/SCM/76/Add.4)
 Foreign Sales Corporation Act (G/SCM/77/Add.4)
 Industrial Incentives (Factory Construction) Act (G/SCM/78/Add.4)
Jordan
 Partial or Total Exemption from Income Tax of Profits Generated from Exports under Law
No. 57 of 1985, as amended (G/SCM/79/Add.4)
Mauritius
 Export Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/80/Add.4)
 Pioneer Status Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/81/Add.4)
 Export Promotion (G/SCM/82/Add.4)
 Freeport Scheme (G/SCM/83/Add.4)
Panama
 Official Industry Register (G/SCM/84/Add.4
 Export Processing Zones (G/SCM/85/Add.4)
Papua New Guinea
 Section 45 of the Income Tax (G/SCM/86/Add.4)
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 17
St. Kitts and Nevis
 Fiscal Incentives Act No. 17 of 1974 (G/SCM/90/Add.4)
St. Lucia
 Fiscal Incentives Act No. 15 of 1974 (G/SCM/87/Add.4)
 Free Zone Act, No. 10 of 1999 (G/SCM/88/Add.4)
 Micro and Small Scale Business Enterprises Act, No. 19 of 1998 (G/SCM/89/Add.4)
St. Vincent & Grenadines
 Fiscal Incentives Act No. 5 of 1982, as amended (G/SCM/91/Add.4)
Uruguay
 Automotive Industry Export Promotion Regime (G/SCM/92/Add.4)
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 18
IV.
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE - SPECIAL SESSION
A.
CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT
1.
Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 (6 December 2008)
II.
MARKET ACCESS
A.
TIERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS
61.
Developed country Members shall reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual
instalments over five years in accordance with the following tiered formula:
(a)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 0 and less
than or equal to 20 per cent, the reduction shall be 50 per cent;
(b)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 20 per cent
and less than or equal to 50 per cent, the reduction shall be 57 per cent;
(c)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 50 per cent
and less than or equal to 75 per cent, the reduction shall be 64 per cent; and
(d)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
75 per cent, the reduction shall be 70 per cent.
63.
Developing country Members other than those specified in paragraph 61 below shall
reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual instalments over eight years in accordance
with the following tiered formula:
(a)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 0 and
less than or equal to 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for
developed country Members in paragraph 61(a) above;
(b)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
30 per cent and less than or equal to 80 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of
the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(b) above;
(c)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
80 per cent and less than or equal to 130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3
of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(c) above; and
(d)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country
Members in paragraph 61(c) above.
65.
Those small, vulnerable economies19, including those among them which are ceiling
binding and homogenously low binding countries, which choose to exercise the option set
19
The Members concerned are those that meet the criteria set out in paragraph 151 and are listed in
Annex I. As is made clear in the Agreed Framework, Small vulnerable economies (SVEs) are not meant to
create any sub-category of Members. Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be
deemed to be eligible for this treatment, should they choose to avail themselves of it, despite not being members
of the SVE Group per se given that this treatment could be deemed to be broadly comparably appropriate:
Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 19
forth in paragraph 130 below shall be entitled to moderate the cuts specified in paragraph 63
above by a further 10 ad valorem percentage points in each band.
D.
SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Special Products
129.
Developing country Members shall be entitled to self-designate Special Products
guided by indicators20 based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural
development. There shall be 12 per cent of tariff lines available for self-designation as
Special Products. Up to 5 per cent of lines may have no cut. The overall average cut shall, in
any case, be 11 percent.*
*
A number of developing country Members have expressed reservations concerning the numbers
specified in this paragraph, noting also that this may be affected by what is decided in other areas of
the text.
130.
In the case of small vulnerable economies, including those among them which are
ceiling binding and homogenously low binding countries, they may, if they choose to do so,
apply the moderated tariff tiered formula for SVEs provided for in paragraph 65 above plus
the Special Product entitlement outlined above. Alternatively, they may chose not to apply
the tiered formula but simply meet an overall average cut of 24 per cent through having in
effect opted to designate as many tariff lines as they choose as Special Products. The tariff
lines so chosen need not be subject to any minimum tariff cut and need not be guided by the
indicators.
Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM)
144.
[In the case of SVE’s referred to in footnote 11 to these modalities, they may apply
the maximum remedy provided for above even if this would otherwise entail breach of a
pre-Doha bound tariff, provided that the maximum increase over a pre-Doha bound tariff does
not exceed 20 ad valorem percentage points or 20 per cent of the current bound tariff,
whichever is higher, for up to a maximum of (10-15) per cent of tariff lines in any given
period. This would be provided that all other relevant conditions for application of the
measure have been met.
145.
For developing country Members other than those referred to in the preceding
paragraph, they may apply the maximum remedy provided for above even if this would
otherwise entail breach of a pre-Doha bound tariff provided that (a) the maximum increase
over the pre-Doha bound tariffs would be no more than 15 ad valorem percentage points or 15
per cent of the current bound tariff, whichever is the higher; (b) the maximum number of
products for which this provision would be invoked would be no more than 2-621 in any given
period; and (c) this would not be permissible for two consecutive periods. All other provisions
would be applicable.]
meet the criteria in paragraph 147). Additionally, Bolivia shall have access, exceptionally, to treatment
equivalent to that provided for in paragraph 142. As an exception, Suriname shall rebind its agricultural tariffs
on a line by line basis at the level of the average bound tariff of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize,
Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and
Trinidad and Tobago resulting from these modalities.
20
See Annex F.
21
For the purposes of this provision a "product" is identifiable at the 6-digit level of the Harmonized
System (HS) nomenclature, but with the understanding that this can entail a maximum of [4 - 8] tariff lines
per product below that 6-digit level.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 20
G.
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
157.
For the purposes of this Agreement, this term applies to Members with economies
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no
more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more
than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.
158.
Developed country Members and developing country Members in a position to do so
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to
Members with small, vulnerable economies.
159.
More specific provisions are to be found in relevant sections of this document.
ANNEX I
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
1.
The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004
(TN/MA/S/18). Individual Members' data were extracted from the United Nations Comtrade
database on 6 June 2007. World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006. This time period
has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustment has been applied to world exports by
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall
results22. The country averages are calculated on the basis of the years for which data are
available.
2.
A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one 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.
3.
The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those
Members for which no data are available.
22
Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of
reporters in Comtrade. World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to
the WTO's world exports by commodity group and aligning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total
imports Intra-trade of the 25 EC member States was then subtracted from the totals.
WTO Member
Share of world agriculture (AOA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.050
0.008
0.087
0.011
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.018
0.060
0.037
0.022
0.050
0.023
0.029
0.017
0.102
0.143
0.065
0.075
0.030
0.116
0.029
0.000
0.056
0.112
0.140
0.087
0.240
0.223
0.256
0.007
0.005
0.008
0.154
0.115
0.189
0.326
0.515
0.154
0.173
0.136
0.206
0.047
0.055
0.040
0.076
0.069
0.083
0.026
0.004
0.046
0.052
0.044
0.060
0.221
0.302
0.144
0.009
0.006
0.012
0.319
0.416
0.231
0.037
0.052
0.024
0.190
0.223
0.160
0.114
0.091
0.136
0.198
0.120
0.269
0.215
0.314
0.126
Share of non-agriculture (NAMA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.017
0.008
0.026
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.013
0.010
0.016
0.011
0.004
0.019
0.004
0.001
0.007
0.028
0.025
0.030
0.056
0.065
0.048
0.053
0.086
0.023
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.052
0.022
0.080
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.063
0.011
0.111
0.098
0.087
0.107
0.044
0.018
0.068
0.012
0.007
0.017
0.027
0.024
0.030
0.032
0.051
0.015
0.012
0.006
0.018
0.047
0.027
0.063
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.072
0.030
0.110
0.008
0.007
0.010
0.032
0.013
0.049
0.040
0.020
0.059
0.071
0.049
0.092
0.041
0.019
0.062
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 21
Worlda
Albania
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
Cameroon
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Rep.
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji
FYR Macedonia
Gabon
Georgia
Ghana
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Share of total merchandise trade
(%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.019
0.008
0.029
0.004
0.001
0.007
0.015
0.010
0.019
0.013
0.005
0.020
0.006
0.004
0.008
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.057
0.061
0.053
0.050
0.078
0.025
0.036
0.038
0.035
0.063
0.034
0.089
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.068
0.018
0.113
0.110
0.112
0.108
0.051
0.026
0.075
0.014
0.010
0.018
0.033
0.026
0.039
0.031
0.046
0.017
0.014
0.009
0.020
0.057
0.044
0.067
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.086
0.053
0.116
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.041
0.026
0.056
0.044
0.024
0.063
0.079
0.052
0.104
0.052
0.037
0.065
Kyrgyzstan
Macao, China
Mauritius
Moldova
Mongolia
Namibia
Nicaragua
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Zimbabwe
Share of world agriculture (AOA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.029
0.032
0.026
0.055
0.013
0.093
0.096
0.102
0.090
0.089
0.132
0.051
0.025
0.017
0.033
0.072
0.073
0.070
0.102
0.129
0.079
0.105
0.091
0.114
0.070
0.086
0.056
0.173
0.280
0.077
0.006
0.002
0.009
0.016
0.009
0.022
0.011
0.009
0.012
0.249
0.284
0.217
0.017
0.007
0.027
0.068
0.082
0.056
0.086
0.072
0.098
0.209
0.333
0.096
0.151
0.280
0.067
a
Excludes intra-EC trade (25 member States) and significant re-exports.
Source: All data are from the United Nations Comtrade database except for world totals, which are WTO estimates.
Share of non-agriculture (NAMA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.010
0.009
0.011
0.050
0.053
0.046
0.034
0.028
0.038
0.013
0.006
0.021
0.012
0.011
0.013
0.028
0.028
0.027
0.018
0.004
0.031
0.035
0.011
0.056
0.030
0.040
0.022
0.023
0.005
0.040
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.095
0.081
0.107
0.009
0.009
0.010
0.015
0.014
0.016
0.088
0.107
0.071
0.037
0.025
0.048
0.030
0.021
0.037
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 22
WTO Member
Share of total merchandise trade
(%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.011
0.010
0.012
0.049
0.049
0.048
0.037
0.032
0.041
0.018
0.013
0.022
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.030
0.030
0.029
0.023
0.012
0.034
0.038
0.016
0.059
0.032
0.042
0.023
0.032
0.022
0.042
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.102
0.092
0.112
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.019
0.018
0.019
0.086
0.102
0.071
0.047
0.044
0.050
0.037
0.037
0.039
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 23
HISTORIC EVOLUTION
1.
Overview of Small Economies' Positions on the Agriculture Negotiations – JOB(05)/161
(27 July 2005)
4.
Taking
into
account
documents
WT/COMTD/SE/W/12
and
WT/COMTD/SE/W/13/Rev.1, the small, vulnerable economies would like to highlight the
following fundamental considerations:
(a)
The agricultural sector in small, vulnerable economies plays a key role in the
attainment of their socio-economic development goals, in particular with
respect to food security, rural development, exports and employment. The
volatility of international prices for products exported by small, vulnerable
economies constitutes an important factor of high vulnerability for some
small, vulnerable economies. In this context, it is important for small
economies that these issues be addressed satisfactorily in the agriculture
negotiations;
(b)
Small, vulnerable economies have an insignificant level of participation in
the multilateral trading system and a minimal share of total world trade.
Furthermore, these economies are constrained by low levels of
competitiveness. Issues related to market access for small economies'
products should be addressed satisfactorily so that these economies can
participate meaningfully in the multilateral trading system in accordance with
their level of development;
(c)
Small, vulnerable economies have critical concerns in the market access
pillar of the agriculture negotiations, including special and differential
treatment and flexibilities and economic development broadly. For most
small economies, tariffs are the only tool at their disposal to protect their
agricultural sectors. It is therefore crucial that the tariff reduction formula be
flexible enough to accommodate the concerns of small vulnerable economies;
(d)
Bearing in mind the key contribution that agriculture makes to the food
security and rural development of small, vulnerable economies, these
countries consider that the provisions of Special Products and the Special
Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) are important for the development of their
agricultural sectors. Accordingly, Special Products shall be exempted from
tariff reductions and from any commitments on TRQs. Special Products shall
also have access to the SSM;
(e)
The issue of maintenance of current de minimis support levels for developing
countries is of major importance to small, vulnerable economies, especially
since they do not have access to the aggregate measure of support (AMS).
We wish to emphasize that there is no justification for the reduction of
de minimis support by developing countries;
(f)
The concerns of small, vulnerable economies shall be taken into account in
all the provisions of special and differential treatment which are provided in
the Doha mandate.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 24
2.
Proposal by the Small, Vulnerable Economies on Market Access in 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.
8.
Small, vulnerable economies (SVEs), with the exception of LDCs, whose average
share of world merchandise exports over the period 1995-2004 do not exceed 0.10 per cent,
will make a contribution to the reform process in agriculture according to the following
provisions:







3.
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.
Small, vulnerable economies will designate Special Products based on their food
security, livelihood security and rural development needs.
Special Products 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.
Report by the Chairman to the TNC – TN/AG/21 (28 November 2005), also Annex A of
the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration
26.
In the case of small and vulnerable economies, a concrete proposal has been made
recently. It has not yet been subject to consultation.
4.
Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs – Room Document (4 May 2006)
3.
The criteria for defining small, vulnerable economies and possible modalities
available to them, or from which they might benefit, do not apply only to the agriculture
negotiations. This note, however, can only address the agriculture specific elements and is
without prejudice to proposals and discussions in other negotiating bodies. However, some
elements of these other proposals and discussions may offer some clarification on specific
issues relating to SVEs, such as the criteria that might be relevant for defining a Member as a
having a "small, vulnerable economy".
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 25
Proposed modalities for market access
4.
The negotiations have benefited from a specific proposal23 in the market access area
that outlines possible provisions the SVEs propose should apply to them. These provisions
could be summarised as:

Tariff reduction formula: linear cuts not exceeding 15 per cent, with a minimum of
10 per cent per tariff line and no tariff cap;

Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM): automatic access for all agricultural tariff
lines;

Special Products: self-designation based on food security, livelihood security and
rural development needs; exemption from tariff reductions and tariff rate quota
commitments; and

Offensive interests: Substantial improvement in market access for products of export
interest.
Issues to be addressed
7.
In view of the level of uncertainty surrounding the distinct elements of the general
provisions for market access and related special and differential treatment, a focused response
to the specific proposals made by the SVEs remains elusive. However, if there are to be any
provisions for SVEs, they will have to be part of the modalities. Although some SVEs
Members have supported the ACP comprehensive proposal – notably as regards the proposed
tariff cuts for developing countries, which they see as a good basis for accommodating their
concerns – there has been little convergence among Members regarding the core tariff
reduction formula, Sensitive Products and the special and differential treatment provisions (of
which, Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism are key elements).
8.
It is encouraging to note, however, that practically all of the individual elements
covered by the SVE proposal have already been the subject of intensive discussions in various
formats under the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture. Furthermore, each of
these topics is being addressed in the various Chairman's Reference Papers which are being
prepared or revised. The direct involvement of SVEs at this stage is crucial in order to ensure
that their specific views on the various market access parameters, as well as on meaningful
special and differential treatment, are adequately incorporated. They, and other Members,
will also need to assess what additional provisions, if any, may be needed in addition to those
available under special and differential treatment.
9.
Furthermore, market access is not entirely de-linked from the other two pillars of
negotiations. As noted by SVEs themselves, market access conditions to international
markets will be effectively improved only if trade-distorting measures affecting agricultural
trade are also corrected and addressed. To a large extent, through the Hong Kong Ministerial
Declaration and in the recent negotiations, it would appear that the political will and support
exists already for some improvements: the final date for the elimination of all forms of export
subsidies has been agreed; and there has been some convergence on reductions in
trade-distorting domestic support. These topics are definitely on the agenda for reform and I
have addressed some of them through earlier Reference Papers.
23
See Attachment 1 to this reference paper; see also JOB(05)/161 (27 July 2005).
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 26
10.
All these elements must be brought together in the right way, i.e. in a horizontal (no
sub-category of WTO Members), inclusive, transparent and participatory process.
5.
Contribution by the SVEs on the Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs – JOB(06)/164
(31 May 2006)
Criteria for defining SVEs
4.
In paragraph 3 of the 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
(NAMA24) 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.
5.
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.
What specific provisions should be envisaged ?
8.
The level of ambition, which the SVEs are 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:
6.

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.
Chairman's Revised Consolidated Reference Paper on Possible Modalities on Market
Access – (9 June 2006)
[SMALL AND VULNERABLE ECONOMIES]
38.
Members with economies defined as small, vulnerable in [ ] may reduce bound duties
by [ ] less than those that would otherwise have been required under paragraph 4 above. Any
product designated as a Special Product under paragraphs 16 to 19 above by a Member with a
small, vulnerable economy shall not be required to [undertake reductions in bound duties,]
[or] [increase bound tariff quotas] [or] [be subject to a tariff cap.]
39.
[Members shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of
export interest to Members with small, vulnerable economies.]
24
Circulated as a room document on 10 May 2006.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 27
7.
Revised Consolidated Reference Paper on Modalities on Market Access – Contribution
on the Treatment of SVEs – JOB(06)/196 (19 June 2006)
I.
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
38.
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 shall reduce
bound duties by [X25] percentage points less than would otherwise have been required under
paragraph 4 above.
39.
In accordance with the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration and the July 2004
Decision, SVEs will have the right to self-designate at least [ ] per cent of tariff lines as SPs
based on criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural development needs. SVEs
shall not be required to undertake reductions in bound duties, increase bound tariff quotas nor
be subject to a tariff cap with regards to these tariff lines.
40.
Members shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of
export interest to SVEs.
8.
Draft Possible Modalities on Agriculture – TN/AG/W/3 (12 July 2006)
[I.
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
47.
Members with economies that, in the period [1999] to [2004], had an average
share of (a) world merchandise trade of no more than [0.16] per cent, (b) world trade
in non-agricultural products of no more than [0.10] per cent and (c) world trade in
agricultural products of no more than [0.40] per cent shall have the right to reduce
bound duties by [ ] less than those that would otherwise have been required under
paragraph 4 above.
48.
Any Member meeting the criteria in paragraph 47 shall have the right to
self-designate at least [ ] per cent of tariff lines as Special Products based on criteria
of food security, livelihood security and rural development needs. Such Members
shall not be required to undertake reductions in bound duties, increase bound tariff
quotas or be subject to a tariff cap] on these products.]
49.
[Developed country] Members shall provide enhanced improvements in
market access for products of export interest to Members with small, vulnerable
economies.]
9.
Submission on the Treatment of Small Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) – JOB(07)/47
(11 April 2007)
6.
In view of their specific situation, SVEs need enhanced Special and Differential
Treatment (SDT). This paper builds upon two elements of the previous SVEs submissions
on: (a) tariff reduction through the tiered formula; and (b) Special Products (SPs).
25
This figure will be determined in the light of emerging convergence in respect of the level of
ambition of the overall market access package.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 28
7.
New commitments undertaken by SVEs shall reflect consideration of their specific
situation and their development needs. For the reasons enumerated above, SVEs shall
contribute less than other developing countries in terms of tariff reduction.
8.
An examination of the tariff schedules and tariff profile of SVE Members will reveal
that tariff reduction commitments based on a tiered formula will require disproportionate
efforts from SVEs because:

Some have homogeneous low bindings. Reduction commitments are likely to
affect those products that are highly important for their development needs.
Applying the formula cuts is likely to reduce the applied rates of such products.

Some have ceiling bindings and/or a high percentage of their tariff lines may fall
in the highest tiers of the tiered formula. This would require them to undertake
greater efforts in terms of average tariff reduction and tariff reduction per tariff
line when compared with the average reduction for developing countries used
during the Uruguay Round (24 per cent) and assessed through the lens of the
proportionality principle.
9.
SPs self-designated by SVEs shall be exempted from tariff reduction, tariff capping
and tariff-quota commitments. Provisions on SPs are important for the development of the
agricultural sectors in SVEs, bearing in mind the key contribution that agriculture makes to
their food security, livelihood security and rural development.
10.
SVEs fully support the view that SPs should be selected and designated based on the
food and livelihood security and rural development needs of developing countries, guided by
the illustrative list of indicators submitted by the G-33. The right to self-designate any
product as SP shall not be questioned at any stage of the negotiating processes, including the
verification of the schedules of members.
11.
SVEs are of the view that the concessions made in the framework of free trade
agreements (FTAs) are part of a very specific and particular balance between the rights and
obligations of the Members involved in the FTA. There shall be no requirement that
multilateral WTO rights and obligations, resulting from the Doha negotiations, including the
self-designation of SPs, be contingent on such FTA concessions.
12.
SVEs also believe that SPs shall cover at least 20 per cent of the total number of tariff
lines of a particular Member and that this limited percentage of tariff lines should be treated
according to the following three layers of commitments:

At least 50 per cent of these tariff lines will be exempted from tariff reductions.
For those SVEs characterized by special circumstances26, an additional
15 per cent of the tariff lines designated as Special Products will not be subject to
any tariff reduction commitment;

25 per cent of tariff lines will be subject to a reduction of 5 per cent; and

The remaining tariff lines, other than those categorized in the two sub-paragraphs
above, will be subject to a reduction of not more than 10 per cent.
26
Special circumstances include situations where a developing country Member: (a) had bound at least
25 per cent of its total tariff lines at a maximum import duty of 80 per cent at the start of the implementation
period; (b) had undertaken ceiling binding commitments under the Uruguay Round; (c) has predominantly low
income or resource poor producers; or (d) has any other structural difficulties in its agriculture sector.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 29
13.
An outcome that reflects the aspirations of SVEs would contribute to enhancing their
participation in the multilateral trading system, in accordance with their development,
economic, financial and trade needs. These enhanced flexibilities will not have any
significant impact on world markets, taking into account the small size of their markets, the
fact that many of these countries are already highly open and are net food-importing
countries.
10.
Communication from the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Special Session Second Instalment (25 May 2007)
17.
From the mandate it is clear that the modalities should address the fuller integration
of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system but without creating a
sub-category of Members. In the proposals made by the group of small, vulnerable
economies, three distinct elements have been raised: the definition of what is a small,
vulnerable economy; how their concerns relating to improving market access may be
addressed; and how their export interests may be addressed.
18.
In order to define what is a small, vulnerable economy, there is a proposal from the
group which states that they are Members with economies that, in the period 1999 to 2004,
had an average share of world merchandise trade of 0.16 per cent or less and world trade in
non agricultural products of 0.1 per cent or less and world trade in agricultural products of
0.4 per cent or less. In the absence of any contrary view I will take that this definition is
acceptable. I would also assume that in submitting their draft Schedules any Member that
claims that its economy meets these criteria would provide verifiable supporting data.
19.
The group of small, vulnerable economies proposed that their export interests should
be addressed by a modality that would require all Members to provide enhanced
improvements in market access for products of export interest to SVEs. I do not recall any
delegation disagreeing with this proposal.
20.
While the proposal made by the SVE group is independent of proposals on Special
Products generally, I would note that it does follow very closely that of the G-33. However, at
this stage there is no consensus among Members on the designation and treatment of Special
Products. Therefore, I feel that, at this stage, there is little I can usefully add beyond noting
that, as regards my own comments on special products, I would have envisaged that some
form of additional flexibility – whether in terms of number and/or treatment – under Special
Products – reflecting the potentiality of disproportionate impact – would appear to have been
the most appropriate means for addressing the specific import concerns of small, vulnerable
economies.
11.
Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4 (1 August 2007)
II.
MARKET ACCESS
A.
TIERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS
50.
Developing country Members other than those specified in paragraph 52 below shall
reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual instalments over eight years in accordance
with the following tiered formula:
(a)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 0 and
less than or equal to 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for
developed country Members in paragraph 49(a) above;
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 30
(b)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
30 per cent and less than or equal to 80 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of
the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 49(b) above;
(c)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
80 per cent and less than or equal to 130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3
of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 49(c) above; and
(d)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country
Members in paragraph 49(d) above.
52.
Small and vulnerable economies27 will, in respect of each tier specified above for
developing countries, be entitled to moderate the two-thirds cut by a further [10] ad valorem
points in each band. Should strict application of this formula result in an overall average cut
higher than [24] per cent, the Member concerned would be entitled to apply lesser reductions
at its discretion, to keep within such an average level.
53.
Where a small and vulnerable Member (or a Member in the supplementary list
specified in footnote below) has ceiling bindings or homogeneous low bindings and
application of the approach specified above would still place an unsustainable adjustment
burden upon it, the Member concerned shall not be required to make a tiered reduction but
would be subject only to the overall average reduction.
D.
SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Special Products
94.
Fourth, we discard any view that we will end up with a rigidly applicable, onesize-fits-all approach as regards selection, given the inherent country-specific nature of a
Special Product provision under the Framework and the Hong Kong Agreement. One option
is, of course, that we have no a priori number whatsoever and accept whatever derives from
the indicators when agreed. Another option is to adopt a more tailored approach, along
something like the following broad lines:
(c)
H.
for those developing country Members including SVEs and others referred to in
footnote, their threshold could be set at a proportionately higher level. There
would be no ceiling for those Members above that threshold.
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
134.
For the purposes of this Agreement, this term applies to Members with economies
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no
more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more
than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.
27
The Members concerned are those that meet the criteria set out in paragraph IV.A.1.147 and are
listed in Annex C. As is made clear in the Framework, SVEs are not meant to create any new category of
Members. Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be deemed to be eligible for this
treatment, should they choose to avail themselves of it, despite not being Members of the SVE group of
countries per se given that this treatment could be deemed to be broadly comparably appropriate: Côte d'Ivoire
and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they meet the criteria in paragraph 137).
These latter Members would also have freedom to opt for varying bands for the tiers.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 31
135.
Developed country Members and developing country Members in a position to do so
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to
Members with small, vulnerable economies.
136.
More specific provisions are to be found in relevant sections of this document.
ANNEX C
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
1.
The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004
(TN/MA/S/18). Individual Members' data were extracted from the United Nations Comtrade
database on 6 June 2007. World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006. This time period
has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustment has been applied to world exports by
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall
results28. The country averages are calculated on the basis of the years for which data are
available.
4.
A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one 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.
5.
The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those
Members for which no data are available.
28
Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of
reporters in Comtrade. World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to
the WTO's world exports by commodity group and aligning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total
imports Intra-trade of the 25 member States of the European Communities was then subtracted from the totals.
Worlda
Albania
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
Cameroon
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Rep.
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji
FYR Macedonia
Gabon
Georgia
Ghana
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Macao, China
Share of world agriculture (AOA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.050
0.008
0.087
0.011
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.018
0.060
0.037
0.022
0.050
0.023
0.029
0.017
0.102
0.143
0.065
0.075
0.030
0.116
0.029
0.000
0.056
0.112
0.140
0.087
0.240
0.223
0.256
0.007
0.005
0.008
0.154
0.115
0.189
0.326
0.515
0.154
0.173
0.136
0.206
0.047
0.055
0.040
0.076
0.069
0.083
0.026
0.004
0.046
0.052
0.044
0.060
0.221
0.302
0.144
0.009
0.006
0.012
0.319
0.416
0.231
0.037
0.052
0.024
0.190
0.223
0.160
0.114
0.091
0.136
0.198
0.120
0.269
0.215
0.314
0.126
0.029
0.032
0.026
0.055
0.013
0.093
Share of non-agriculture (NAMA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.017
0.008
0.026
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.013
0.010
0.016
0.011
0.004
0.019
0.004
0.001
0.007
0.028
0.025
0.030
0.056
0.065
0.048
0.053
0.086
0.023
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.052
0.022
0.080
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.063
0.011
0.111
0.098
0.087
0.107
0.044
0.018
0.068
0.012
0.007
0.017
0.027
0.024
0.030
0.032
0.051
0.015
0.012
0.006
0.018
0.047
0.027
0.063
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.072
0.030
0.110
0.008
0.007
0.010
0.032
0.013
0.049
0.040
0.020
0.059
0.071
0.049
0.092
0.041
0.019
0.062
0.010
0.009
0.011
0.050
0.053
0.046
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 32
WTO Member
Share of total merchandise trade
(%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.019
0.008
0.029
0.004
0.001
0.007
0.015
0.010
0.019
0.013
0.005
0.020
0.006
0.004
0.008
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.057
0.061
0.053
0.050
0.078
0.025
0.036
0.038
0.035
0.063
0.034
0.089
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.068
0.018
0.113
0.110
0.112
0.108
0.051
0.026
0.075
0.014
0.010
0.018
0.033
0.026
0.039
0.031
0.046
0.017
0.014
0.009
0.020
0.057
0.044
0.067
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.086
0.053
0.116
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.041
0.026
0.056
0.044
0.024
0.063
0.079
0.052
0.104
0.052
0.037
0.065
0.011
0.010
0.012
0.049
0.049
0.048
WTO Member
Mauritius
Moldova
Mongolia
Namibia
Nicaragua
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Zimbabwe
Share of total merchandise trade
(%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.037
0.032
0.041
0.018
0.013
0.022
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.030
0.030
0.029
0.023
0.012
0.034
0.038
0.016
0.059
0.032
0.042
0.023
0.032
0.022
0.042
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.102
0.092
0.112
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.019
0.018
0.019
0.086
0.102
0.071
0.047
0.044
0.050
0.037
0.037
0.039
Share of world agriculture (AOA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.096
0.102
0.090
0.089
0.132
0.051
0.025
0.017
0.033
0.072
0.073
0.070
0.102
0.129
0.079
0.105
0.091
0.114
0.070
0.086
0.056
0.173
0.280
0.077
0.006
0.002
0.009
0.016
0.009
0.022
0.011
0.009
0.012
0.249
0.284
0.217
0.017
0.007
0.027
0.068
0.082
0.056
0.086
0.072
0.098
0.209
0.333
0.096
0.151
0.280
0.067
Share of non-agriculture (NAMA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.034
0.028
0.038
0.013
0.006
0.021
0.012
0.011
0.013
0.028
0.028
0.027
0.018
0.004
0.031
0.035
0.011
0.056
0.030
0.040
0.022
0.023
0.005
0.040
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.095
0.081
0.107
0.009
0.009
0.010
0.015
0.014
0.016
0.088
0.107
0.071
0.037
0.025
0.048
0.030
0.021
0.037
a
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 33
Excludes intra-trade of the European Communities and significant re-exports.
Source: All data are from the United Nations Comtrade database except for World totals, which are WTO estimates.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 34
12.
Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.1 (8 February 2008)
II.
MARKET ACCESS
TIERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS
64.
Developing country Members other than those specified in paragraph 66 below shall
reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual instalments over eight years in accordance
with the following tiered formula:
(a)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 0 and
less than or equal to 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for
developed country Members in paragraph 62(a) above;
(b)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
30 per cent and less than or equal to 80 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of
the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 62(b) above;
(c)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
80 per cent and less than or equal to 130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3
of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 62(c) above; and
(d)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country
Members in paragraph 62(d) above.
65.
Small, vulnerable economies29 shall be entitled to moderate the cuts specified in
paragraph 64 above by a further [10] ad valorem percentage points in each band
D.
SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Special Products
123.
Developing country Members shall be entitled to self-designate Special Products
guided by indicators30 based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural
development.[31] There shall be a minimum entitlement of 8 per cent32, and a maximum
29
The Members concerned are those that meet the criteria set out in paragraph 151 and are listed in
Annex I. As is made clear in the Agreed Framework, Small vulnerable economies (SVEs) are not meant to
create any sub-category of Members. Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be
deemed to be eligible for this treatment, should they choose to avail themselves of it, despite not being members
of the SVE Group per se given that this treatment could be deemed to be broadly comparably appropriate:
Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they
meet the criteria in paragraph 151).
30
See Annex F.
31
Below the minimum entitlement of 8 per cent referred to in the next sentence, the developing country
Member concerned need not resort to guidance by those indicators.
32
Where a Member finds that it would not, after guidance by indicators, be entitled to any additional
Special Products beyond the minimum provided for in this paragraph, that Member may, in effect, "transfer"
any unused Sensitive Products entitlement to obtain thereby additional Special Products, subject to the
following: (a) that the maximum entitlement for transfer cannot be more than would be consistent with
respecting the overall ceiling of [12] [20] per cent of tariff lines for Special Products; and (b) that the tariff
reduction treatment for the tariff lines concerned shall be in conformity with the tariff cut entitlements for
Special Products under this paragraph, except that sensitive product "transfers" cannot be used for [additional]
"no cut" Special Products.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 35
entitlement of [12] [20] per cent, of tariff lines available for self-designation as Special
Products. Under this provision, there is an entitlement to [6] per cent of tariff lines which
shall take a tariff cut of [8] [15] per cent. A further [6] per cent is available with a cut of
[12] [25] per cent. [[A further] [8 per cent of] [no] tariff lines shall be eligible for no cut.]
124.
In the case of small vulnerable economies, they may, if they choose to do so, apply
the moderated tariff tiered formula for SVEs provided for in paragraph 61 above plus the
Special Product entitlement outlined above. Alternatively, they may simply deviate from the
tiered formula cut for as many tariff lines as they choose to designate as a Special Product
provided that they meet the overall average cut of 24 per cent. The tariff lines that they
designate as Special Products need not be subject to any minimum tariff cut and this
designation need not be guided by the indicators. Developing country Members shall be
entitled to self-designate Special Products guided by indicators33 based on the criteria of food
security, livelihood security and rural development. There shall be 10-18 per cent of tariff
lines available for self-designation as Special Products34. Up to 6 per cent of/no lines may
have no cut. The overall average cut shall, in any case, be 10-14 percent.
G.
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
134.
For the purposes of this Agreement, this term applies to Members with economies
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no
more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more
than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.
135.
Developed country Members and developing country Members in a position to do so
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to
Members with small, vulnerable economies.
136.
More specific provisions are to be found in relevant sections of this document.
ANNEX I
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
1.
The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004
(TN/MA/S/18). Individual Members' data were extracted from the United Nations Comtrade
database on 6 June 2007. World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006. This time period
has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustment has been applied to world exports by
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall
results35. The country averages are calculated on the basis of the years for which data are
available.
33
See Annex F.
Below this level, the developing country Member concerned need not resort to guidance by those
indicators. In the case of RAMs, the threshold level above which indicators are not required to be used shall be
1 percentage point higher.
35
Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of
reporters in Comtrade. World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to
the WTO's world exports by commodity group and aligning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total
imports Intra-trade of the 25 member States of the European Communities was then subtracted from the totals.
34
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 36
6.
A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one 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.
7.
The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those
Members for which no data are available.
WTO Member
Share of world agriculture (AOA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.050
0.008
0.087
0.011
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.018
0.060
0.037
0.022
0.050
0.023
0.029
0.017
0.102
0.143
0.065
0.075
0.030
0.116
0.029
0.000
0.056
0.112
0.140
0.087
0.240
0.223
0.256
0.007
0.005
0.008
0.154
0.115
0.189
0.326
0.515
0.154
0.173
0.136
0.206
0.047
0.055
0.040
0.076
0.069
0.083
0.026
0.004
0.046
0.052
0.044
0.060
0.221
0.302
0.144
0.009
0.006
0.012
0.319
0.416
0.231
0.037
0.052
0.024
0.190
0.223
0.160
0.114
0.091
0.136
0.198
0.120
0.269
0.215
0.314
0.126
0.029
0.032
0.026
0.055
0.013
0.093
Share of non-agriculture (NAMA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.017
0.008
0.026
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.013
0.010
0.016
0.011
0.004
0.019
0.004
0.001
0.007
0.028
0.025
0.030
0.056
0.065
0.048
0.053
0.086
0.023
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.052
0.022
0.080
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.063
0.011
0.111
0.098
0.087
0.107
0.044
0.018
0.068
0.012
0.007
0.017
0.027
0.024
0.030
0.032
0.051
0.015
0.012
0.006
0.018
0.047
0.027
0.063
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.072
0.030
0.110
0.008
0.007
0.010
0.032
0.013
0.049
0.040
0.020
0.059
0.071
0.049
0.092
0.041
0.019
0.062
0.010
0.009
0.011
0.050
0.053
0.046
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 37
Worlda
Albania
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
Cameroon
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Rep.
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji
FYR Macedonia
Gabon
Georgia
Ghana
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Macao, China
Share of total merchandise trade
(%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.019
0.008
0.029
0.004
0.001
0.007
0.015
0.010
0.019
0.013
0.005
0.020
0.006
0.004
0.008
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.057
0.061
0.053
0.050
0.078
0.025
0.036
0.038
0.035
0.063
0.034
0.089
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.068
0.018
0.113
0.110
0.112
0.108
0.051
0.026
0.075
0.014
0.010
0.018
0.033
0.026
0.039
0.031
0.046
0.017
0.014
0.009
0.020
0.057
0.044
0.067
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.086
0.053
0.116
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.041
0.026
0.056
0.044
0.024
0.063
0.079
0.052
0.104
0.052
0.037
0.065
0.011
0.010
0.012
0.049
0.049
0.048
Mauritius
Moldova
Mongolia
Namibia
Nicaragua
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Zimbabwe
a
Share of world agriculture (AOA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.096
0.102
0.090
0.089
0.132
0.051
0.025
0.017
0.033
0.072
0.073
0.070
0.102
0.129
0.079
0.105
0.091
0.114
0.070
0.086
0.056
0.173
0.280
0.077
0.006
0.002
0.009
0.016
0.009
0.022
0.011
0.009
0.012
0.249
0.284
0.217
0.017
0.007
0.027
0.068
0.082
0.056
0.086
0.072
0.098
0.209
0.333
0.096
0.151
0.280
0.067
Excludes intra-trade of the European Communities and significant re-exports.
Source: All data are from the United Nations Comtrade database except for World totals, which are WTO estimates.
Share of non-agriculture (NAMA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.034
0.028
0.038
0.013
0.006
0.021
0.012
0.011
0.013
0.028
0.028
0.027
0.018
0.004
0.031
0.035
0.011
0.056
0.030
0.040
0.022
0.023
0.005
0.040
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.095
0.081
0.107
0.009
0.009
0.010
0.015
0.014
0.016
0.088
0.107
0.071
0.037
0.025
0.048
0.030
0.021
0.037
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 38
WTO Member
Share of total merchandise trade
(%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.037
0.032
0.041
0.018
0.013
0.022
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.030
0.030
0.029
0.023
0.012
0.034
0.038
0.016
0.059
0.032
0.042
0.023
0.032
0.022
0.042
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.102
0.092
0.112
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.019
0.018
0.019
0.086
0.102
0.071
0.047
0.044
0.050
0.037
0.037
0.039
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 39
13.
Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.2 (19 May 2008)
II.
MARKET ACCESS
A.
TIERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS
63.
Developing country Members other than those specified in paragraph 65 below shall
reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual instalments over eight years in accordance
with the following tiered formula:
(a)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 0 and
less than or equal to 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for
developed country Members in paragraph 61(a) above;
(b)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
30 per cent and less than or equal to 80 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of
the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(b) above;
(c)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
80 per cent and less than or equal to 130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3
of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(c) above; and
(d)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country
Members in paragraph 61(d) above.
65.
Those small, vulnerable economies36, including those among them which are ceiling
binding and homogenously low binding countries, which choose to exercise the option set
forth in paragraph 120 below shall be entitled to moderate the cuts specified in paragraph 63
above by a further 10 ad valorem percentage points in each band.
D.
SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Special Products
118.
Developing country Members shall be entitled to self-designate Special Products
guided by indicators37 based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural
development. There shall be 10-18 per cent of tariff lines available for self-designation as
Special Products38. Up to 6 per cent of/no lines may have no cut. The overall average cut
shall, in any case, be 10-14 percent.
36
The Members concerned are those that meet the criteria set out in paragraph 151 and are listed in
Annex I. As is made clear in the Agreed Framework, Small vulnerable economies (SVEs) are not meant to
create any sub-category of Members. Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be
deemed to be eligible for this treatment, should they choose to avail themselves of it, despite not being members
of the SVE Group per se given that this treatment could be deemed to be broadly comparably appropriate:
Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they
meet the criteria in paragraph 147). Additionally, Bolivia shall have access, exceptionally, to treatment
equivalent to that provided for in paragraph 142.
37
See Annex F.
38
Below this level, the developing country Member concerned need not resort to guidance by those
indicators. In the case of RAMs, the threshold level above which indicators are not required to be used shall be
1 percentage point higher.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 40
119.
In the case of small vulnerable economies, including those among them which are
ceiling binding and homogenously low binding countries, they may, if they choose to do so,
apply the moderated tariff tiered formula for SVEs provided for in paragraph 61 above plus
the Special Product entitlement outlined above. Alternatively, they may chose not to apply
the tiered formula but simply meet an overall average cut of 24 per cent through having in
effect opted to designate as many tariff lines as they choose as Special Products. The tariff
lines so chosen need not be subject to any minimum tariff cut and need not be guided by the
indicators.
G.
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
141.
For the purposes of this Agreement, this term applies to Members with economies
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no
more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more
than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.
142.
Developed country Members and developing country Members in a position to do so
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to
Members with small, vulnerable economies.
143.
More specific provisions are to be found in relevant sections of this document.
ANNEX I
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
1.
The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004
(TN/MA/S/18). Individual Members' data were extracted from the United Nations Comtrade
database on 6 June 2007. World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006. This time period
has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustment has been applied to world exports by
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall
results39. The country averages are calculated on the basis of the years for which data are
available.
8.
A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one 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.
9.
The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those
Members for which no data are available.
39
Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of
reporters in Comtrade. World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to
the WTO's world exports by commodity group and aligning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total
imports Intra-trade of the 25 member States of the European Communities was then subtracted from the totals.
WTO Member
Share of world agriculture (AOA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.050
0.008
0.087
0.011
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.018
0.060
0.037
0.022
0.050
0.023
0.029
0.017
0.102
0.143
0.065
0.075
0.030
0.116
0.029
0.000
0.056
0.112
0.140
0.087
0.240
0.223
0.256
0.007
0.005
0.008
0.154
0.115
0.189
0.326
0.515
0.154
0.173
0.136
0.206
0.047
0.055
0.040
0.076
0.069
0.083
0.026
0.004
0.046
0.052
0.044
0.060
0.221
0.302
0.144
0.009
0.006
0.012
0.319
0.416
0.231
0.037
0.052
0.024
0.190
0.223
0.160
0.114
0.091
0.136
0.198
0.120
0.269
0.215
0.314
0.126
0.029
0.032
0.026
0.055
0.013
0.093
Share of non-agriculture (NAMA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.017
0.008
0.026
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.013
0.010
0.016
0.011
0.004
0.019
0.004
0.001
0.007
0.028
0.025
0.030
0.056
0.065
0.048
0.053
0.086
0.023
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.052
0.022
0.080
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.063
0.011
0.111
0.098
0.087
0.107
0.044
0.018
0.068
0.012
0.007
0.017
0.027
0.024
0.030
0.032
0.051
0.015
0.012
0.006
0.018
0.047
0.027
0.063
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.072
0.030
0.110
0.008
0.007
0.010
0.032
0.013
0.049
0.040
0.020
0.059
0.071
0.049
0.092
0.041
0.019
0.062
0.010
0.009
0.011
0.050
0.053
0.046
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 41
Worlda
Albania
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
Cameroon
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Rep.
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji
FYR Macedonia
Gabon
Georgia
Ghana
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Macao, China
Share of total merchandise trade
(%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.019
0.008
0.029
0.004
0.001
0.007
0.015
0.010
0.019
0.013
0.005
0.020
0.006
0.004
0.008
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.057
0.061
0.053
0.050
0.078
0.025
0.036
0.038
0.035
0.063
0.034
0.089
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.068
0.018
0.113
0.110
0.112
0.108
0.051
0.026
0.075
0.014
0.010
0.018
0.033
0.026
0.039
0.031
0.046
0.017
0.014
0.009
0.020
0.057
0.044
0.067
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.086
0.053
0.116
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.041
0.026
0.056
0.044
0.024
0.063
0.079
0.052
0.104
0.052
0.037
0.065
0.011
0.010
0.012
0.049
0.049
0.048
Mauritius
Moldova
Mongolia
Namibia
Nicaragua
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Zimbabwe
a
Share of world agriculture (AOA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.096
0.102
0.090
0.089
0.132
0.051
0.025
0.017
0.033
0.072
0.073
0.070
0.102
0.129
0.079
0.105
0.091
0.114
0.070
0.086
0.056
0.173
0.280
0.077
0.006
0.002
0.009
0.016
0.009
0.022
0.011
0.009
0.012
0.249
0.284
0.217
0.017
0.007
0.027
0.068
0.082
0.056
0.086
0.072
0.098
0.209
0.333
0.096
0.151
0.280
0.067
Excludes intra-trade of the European Communities and significant re-exports.
Source: All data are from the United Nations Comtrade database except for World totals, which are WTO estimates.
Share of non-agriculture (NAMA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.034
0.028
0.038
0.013
0.006
0.021
0.012
0.011
0.013
0.028
0.028
0.027
0.018
0.004
0.031
0.035
0.011
0.056
0.030
0.040
0.022
0.023
0.005
0.040
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.095
0.081
0.107
0.009
0.009
0.010
0.015
0.014
0.016
0.088
0.107
0.071
0.037
0.025
0.048
0.030
0.021
0.037
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 42
WTO Member
Share of total merchandise trade
(%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.037
0.032
0.041
0.018
0.013
0.022
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.030
0.030
0.029
0.023
0.012
0.034
0.038
0.016
0.059
0.032
0.042
0.023
0.032
0.022
0.042
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.102
0.092
0.112
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.019
0.018
0.019
0.086
0.102
0.071
0.047
0.044
0.050
0.037
0.037
0.039
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 43
14.
Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.3 (10 July 2008)
II.
MARKET ACCESS
A.
TIERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS
137.
Developed country Members shall reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual
instalments over five years in accordance with the following tiered formula:
(a)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 0 and less
than or equal to 20 per cent, the reduction shall be 50 per cent;
(b)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 20 per cent
and less than or equal to 50 per cent, the reduction shall be 57 per cent;
(c)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 50 per cent
and less than or equal to 75 per cent, the reduction shall be 64 per cent; and
(d)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
75 per cent, the reduction shall be [(66) (73)] per cent.
138.
Developing country Members other than those specified in paragraph 61 below shall
reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual instalments over eight years in accordance
with the following tiered formula:
(a)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 0 and
less than or equal to 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for
developed country Members in paragraph 61(a) above;
(b)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
30 per cent and less than or equal to 80 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of
the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(b) above;
(c)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
80 per cent and less than or equal to 130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3
of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(c) above; and
(d)
where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than
130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country
Members in paragraph 61(c) above.
139.
Those small, vulnerable economies40, including those among them which are ceiling
binding and homogenously low binding countries, which choose to exercise the option set
forth in paragraph 120 below shall be entitled to moderate the cuts specified in paragraph 63
above by a further 10 ad valorem percentage points in each band.
40
The Members concerned are those that meet the criteria set out in paragraph 151 and are listed in
Annex I. As is made clear in the Agreed Framework, Small vulnerable economies (SVEs) are not meant to
create any sub-category of Members. Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be
deemed to be eligible for this treatment, should they choose to avail themselves of it, despite not being members
of the SVE Group per se given that this treatment could be deemed to be broadly comparably appropriate:
Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they
meet the criteria in paragraph 147). Additionally, Bolivia shall have access, exceptionally, to treatment
equivalent to that provided for in paragraph 142.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 44
D.
SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Special Products
120.
Developing country Members shall be entitled to self-designate Special Products
guided by indicators41 based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural
development. There shall be 10-18 per cent of tariff lines available for self-designation as
Special Products42. Up to 6 per cent of/no lines may have no cut. The overall average cut
shall, in any case, be 10-14 per cent.
121.
In the case of small vulnerable economies, including those among them which are
ceiling binding and homogenously low binding countries, they may, if they choose to do so,
apply the moderated tariff tiered formula for SVEs provided for in paragraph 65 above plus
the Special Product entitlement outlined above. Alternatively, they may chose not to apply
the tiered formula but simply meet an overall average cut of 24 per cent through having in
effect opted to designate as many tariff lines as they choose as Special Products. The tariff
lines so chosen need not be subject to any minimum tariff cut and need not be guided by the
indicators.
G.
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
122.
For the purposes of this Agreement, this term applies to Members with economies
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no
more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more
than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.
123.
Developed country Members and developing country Members in a position to do so
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to
Members with small, vulnerable economies.
124.
More specific provisions are to be found in relevant sections of this document.
ANNEX I
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
1.
The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004
(TN/MA/S/18). Individual Members' data were extracted from the United Nations Comtrade
database on 6 June 2007. World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006. This time period
has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustment has been applied to world exports by
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall
results43. The country averages are calculated on the basis of the years for which data are
available.
41
See Annex F.
Below this level, the developing country Member concerned need not resort to guidance by those
indicators. In the case of RAMs, the threshold level above which indicators are not required to be used shall be
1 percentage point higher.
43
Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of
reporters in Comtrade. World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to
42
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 45
10.
A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one 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.
11.
The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those
Members for which no data are available.
the WTO's world exports by commodity group and aligning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total
imports Intra-trade of the 25 member States of the European Communities was then subtracted from the totals.
Worlda
Albania
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
Cameroon
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Rep.
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji
FYR Macedonia
Gabon
Georgia
Ghana
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Share of world agriculture (AOA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.050
0.008
0.087
0.011
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.018
0.060
0.037
0.022
0.050
0.023
0.029
0.017
0.102
0.143
0.065
0.075
0.030
0.116
0.029
0.000
0.056
0.112
0.140
0.087
0.240
0.223
0.256
0.007
0.005
0.008
0.154
0.115
0.189
0.326
0.515
0.154
0.173
0.136
0.206
0.047
0.055
0.040
0.076
0.069
0.083
0.026
0.004
0.046
0.052
0.044
0.060
0.221
0.302
0.144
0.009
0.006
0.012
0.319
0.416
0.231
0.037
0.052
0.024
0.190
0.223
0.160
0.114
0.091
0.136
Share of non-agriculture (NAMA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.017
0.008
0.026
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.013
0.010
0.016
0.011
0.004
0.019
0.004
0.001
0.007
0.028
0.025
0.030
0.056
0.065
0.048
0.053
0.086
0.023
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.052
0.022
0.080
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.063
0.011
0.111
0.098
0.087
0.107
0.044
0.018
0.068
0.012
0.007
0.017
0.027
0.024
0.030
0.032
0.051
0.015
0.012
0.006
0.018
0.047
0.027
0.063
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.072
0.030
0.110
0.008
0.007
0.010
0.032
0.013
0.049
0.040
0.020
0.059
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 46
WTO Member
Share of total merchandise trade
(%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
100
100
100
0.019
0.008
0.029
0.004
0.001
0.007
0.015
0.010
0.019
0.013
0.005
0.020
0.006
0.004
0.008
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.057
0.061
0.053
0.050
0.078
0.025
0.036
0.038
0.035
0.063
0.034
0.089
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.068
0.018
0.113
0.110
0.112
0.108
0.051
0.026
0.075
0.014
0.010
0.018
0.033
0.026
0.039
0.031
0.046
0.017
0.014
0.009
0.020
0.057
0.044
0.067
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.086
0.053
0.116
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.041
0.026
0.056
0.044
0.024
0.063
WTO Member
a
Share of world agriculture (AOA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.198
0.120
0.269
0.215
0.314
0.126
0.029
0.032
0.026
0.055
0.013
0.093
0.096
0.102
0.090
0.089
0.132
0.051
0.025
0.017
0.033
0.072
0.073
0.070
0.102
0.129
0.079
0.105
0.091
0.114
0.070
0.086
0.056
0.173
0.280
0.077
0.006
0.002
0.009
0.016
0.009
0.022
0.011
0.009
0.012
0.249
0.284
0.217
0.017
0.007
0.027
0.068
0.082
0.056
0.086
0.072
0.098
0.209
0.333
0.096
0.151
0.280
0.067
Excludes intra-trade of the European Communities and significant re-exports.
Source: All data are from the United Nations Comtrade database except for World totals, which are WTO estimates.
Share of non-agriculture (NAMA)
trade (%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.071
0.049
0.092
0.041
0.019
0.062
0.010
0.009
0.011
0.050
0.053
0.046
0.034
0.028
0.038
0.013
0.006
0.021
0.012
0.011
0.013
0.028
0.028
0.027
0.018
0.004
0.031
0.035
0.011
0.056
0.030
0.040
0.022
0.023
0.005
0.040
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.095
0.081
0.107
0.009
0.009
0.010
0.015
0.014
0.016
0.088
0.107
0.071
0.037
0.025
0.048
0.030
0.021
0.037
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 47
Jordan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Macao, China
Mauritius
Moldova
Mongolia
Namibia
Nicaragua
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Zimbabwe
Share of total merchandise trade
(%)
Total
(exports +
Exports
Imports
imports
0.079
0.052
0.104
0.052
0.037
0.065
0.011
0.010
0.012
0.049
0.049
0.048
0.037
0.032
0.041
0.018
0.013
0.022
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.030
0.030
0.029
0.023
0.012
0.034
0.038
0.016
0.059
0.032
0.042
0.023
0.032
0.022
0.042
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.102
0.092
0.112
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.019
0.018
0.019
0.086
0.102
0.071
0.047
0.044
0.050
0.037
0.037
0.039
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 48
15.
G-33 Proposal on the Treatment of SSM provided to the SVEs - TN/AG/GEN/29
(10 February 2009)
4.
The basis and the structure for the SSM to be agreed should be the one in the
document TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4.
5.
In that regard, it should include a paragraph 133 bis for the SVEs, as follows:
133 bis
As regards the volume-based SSM, it shall be applied on the basis of a rolling average of
imports in the preceding three-year period for which data are available (hereafter "base
imports"). On this basis, the applicable triggers and remedies shall be set as follows:
(a)
where the volume of imports during any year exceeds 110 per cent but does not
exceed 115 per cent of base imports, the maximum additional duty that may be
imposed shall not exceed 25 per cent of the current bound tariff or 25 percentage
points, whichever is higher;
(b)
where the volume of imports during any year exceeds 115 per cent but does not
exceed 120 per cent of base imports, the maximum additional duty that may be
imposed shall not exceed 40 per cent of the current bound tariff or 40 percentage
points, whichever is higher;
(c)
where the volume of imports during any year exceeds 120 per cent of base
imports, the maximum additional duty that may be imposed shall not exceed
50 per cent of the current bound tariff or 50 percentage points, whichever is
higher.
6.
In paragraph 144, the maximum increase over the pre-Doha bound tariff should be 75
ad valorem percentage points or 75 per cent of the current bound tariff whichever is higher.
Also, a maximum of 30 per cent of tariff lines in any given period should be allowed to go
beyond the pre-Doha bound levels.44
7.
Further, as a matter of abundant caution for the SVEs, the SVEs reiterates some of its
existing positions which hold good for SVEs as well as for other developing countries.



The provisions in the proposed paragraph 133 bis (a) to (c) are without prejudice to
Members' rights to raise their applied tariffs up to the level of their current bound
tariffs.
The triggers and remedies in paragraph 133 will apply for both within and over the preDoha bound rates.
No mandatory cross check mechanism of any kind is acceptable.
8.
For all developing countries’ markets including SVEs and LDCs, depressed prices
attributable to high subsidies and market imperfections/failures can have a deleterious effect on
domestic production and markets. As such, the price-based mechanism is of crucial importance
and a focused discussion on the modalities for the price-based mechanism, including the
flexibilities for SVEs, is called for as soon as possible.
44
Bolivia is not in a position to support these numbers at this stage and remains with the pre-July
position of the Group.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 49
9.
Finally, the G-33 emphasizes that both the volume-based SSM and price-based SSM
have to be designed in order to address their needs in a simple and effective manner, and that
this will only be achievable by extending additional and substantive special and differential
treatment to the group.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 50
V.
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS
A.
CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT
1.
Fourth Revision of Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural Market Access –
TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3 (6 December 2008)
Small, Vulnerable Economies
13.
With the exception of developed Members, those Members having a share of less than
0.1 percent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best
available data as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following modality
of tariff reduction instead of the formula modality which is contained in paragraphs 5, 6
and 7 above.
(a)
Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:45
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind all of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an
average level that does not exceed an overall average of 30 per cent;
(ii) at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural
tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall average of
27 per cent;
(iii) at or above 20 per cent but below 30 shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff
lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall average 18 per cent; and
(iv) below 20 per cent, shall apply a minimum line-by-line reduction of 5 per cent on
95 per cent of all non-agricultural tariff lines or bind at the overall average that
would result from that line-by-line reduction.
As an exception, Bolivia shall not be required but is encouraged to apply the modalities
in paragraph 13.
As an exception, Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (a)(i).
As an exception, Gabon shall engage in GATT Article XXVIII negotiations to reach the
overall target average of 20 per cent.
(b)
All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into force of
the DDA results at initial bound rates. As an exception, Fiji shall have the flexibility to
maintain 10 per cent of non-agricultural tariff lines unbound.
(c)
The initial bound rates shall be established as follows: for bound tariff lines the existing
bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to this modality
will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.
45
See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 51
(d)
The overall binding target average shall be made effective at the end of the
implementation period as follows: the tariff reductions shall be implemented in 11 equal
rate reductions. The first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year
following the entry into force of the DDA results and each successive reduction shall be
made effective on 1 January of each of the following years, except for lines covered
under 13(e) where the first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year
following completion of the grace period.
(e)
For those Recently Acceded Members applying this modality, a grace period of 3 years
shall be applied on those lines on which accession commitments are not fully
implemented before entry into force of the DDA results. This grace period shall begin as
of the date of full implementation of the accession commitment on that tariff line.
(f)
All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem basis. Existing bindings on a non ad valorem
basis shall be converted to ad valorem equivalents on the basis of the methodology
outlined in document TN/MA/20.
HISTORIC EVOLUTION
1.
Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Treatment of Small, Vulnerable
Economies in the NAMA Negotiations - 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.
9.
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:
(a)
Make tariff reductions not exceeding 15 per cent, but with minimum cuts of
10 per cent 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.
10.
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.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 52
2.
Progress Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee – TN/MA/16
(24 November 2005), also Annex B of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration
19.
A paper was submitted recently by a group of Members which proposes inter alia
lesser and linear cuts to Members identified by a criterion using trade share. While some
developing and developed Members were sympathetic to the situation of such Members,
concerns were expressed with respect to the threshold used to establish eligibility, and also the
treatment envisaged. Other developing Members expressed serious reservations about this
proposal which in their view appeared to be creating a new category of developing Members,
and to be further diluting the ambition of the NAMA negotiations. The sponsors of this
proposal stressed that the small, vulnerable economies had characteristics which warranted
special treatment.
20.
This is an issue on which there is a serious divergence of opinion among developing
Members. This subject will need to be debated further. Discussions may be facilitated
through additional statistical analysis.
3.
NAMA – Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Criteria and Treatment of
SVEs, submission by the SVEs – (1 May 2006)
1.
Following the submission of two proposals to the Negotiating Group on Market
Access46, and in pursuance of paragraph 21 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration in
which Ministers agreed to "establish ways to provide flexibilities" for the small, vulnerable
economies, the proponents have held a series of consultations with a number of delegations
over the past weeks regarding the criteria and treatment of the small, vulnerable economies in
the NAMA and agriculture modalities.
2.
Members of the NAMA Negotiating Group have shown an understanding of the
concerns raised by the small, vulnerable economies and have demonstrated a willingness to
engage constructively to find solutions that are capable of integrating these economies into
the multilateral trading system, consistent with the wishes of the Ministers.
3.
A number of issues were raised by delegations participating in the consultations
regarding the criteria and treatment of small, vulnerable economies as well as the contribution
these economies are capable of making to trade liberalisation.
7.
The criteria for the identification of potential developing country beneficiaries of
this proposal in the NAMA negotiations, excluding LDC's, 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; and

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 cent47
8.
The treatment proposed for all 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 non-agricultural tariff lines at average levels reflected in the following
tiers and bands:
46
47
JOB(05)/165 of 29 July 2005; and TN/MA/W/66 of 11 November 2005.
Data Source: WTO, 1999 – 2004.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 53
Current
Average %
Bound
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 -
9.
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
[ ].
10.
The implementation of the tariff reduction commitments should be staged over a
longer period than other developing countries in order to ensure a smooth liberalisation
process and not jeopardise the industrial and social development prospects of the small,
vulnerable economies.
4.
Small and Vulnerable Economies - Text Proposal for the Chairman of NAMA by the
Delegations of Costa Rica and Uruguay – Room Document (30 May 2006)
Criteria
Regarding trade participation of a small and vulnerable economy in global trade, the
identifying criteria should be as follows:

Developing countries whose share of world NAMA trade (exp-imp) does not exceed a
unique percentage to be agreed as a threshold.
WTO Secretariat statistics should be used in order to determine the specific situation
of these countries in this area of negotiation.
The period of reference to be used should be from year 1999 to year 2004 given that
year 1999 is already included as the reference period in Annex B.
Treatment
Once the objective criteria and period of reference have been determined, the negotiating
group should then proceed to negotiate the treatment. Such treatment should take into
account the following principles:


SVEs contribution should be significantly higher than the contribution to be agreed for
paragraph 6 countries and LDCs.
Treatment should be compatible with the NAMA Framework and the Hong Kong
Declaration.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 54
Proposal
The treatment proposed for small and vulnerable economies is as follows:

5.
Developing countries that have been identified by the above mentioned criteria to be
small and vulnerable economies will benefit from a unique [X] additional percentage
points to the figure currently in brackets in paragraph 8(a) or paragraph 8(b)48.
NAMA 11 - Non-Paper – Small Vulnerable Economies – (30 May 2006)
4.
For the above reasons, it is the view of the NAMA 1149 that a solution based on the
paragraph 8, with appropriate modulation, will provide the much needed additional protection
for the sensitivities and specific needs of the SVEs. In document TN/MA/W/66, the SVEs
have pointed out that the flexibilities "as currently crafted in paragraph 8 are of very limited
scope ... in addition, the thresholds and conditionalities limit the usefulness...". The
NAMA 11 agrees that these limitations have to be overcome and thereby the following could
be considered as an appropriate solution:
6.
i.
Once the number in brackets of paragraph 8(a) and (b) has been agreed for
developing countries, additional flexibility beyond that shall be identified for
SVEs; further relaxation of the trade limitation, in particular, is an avenue
worth exploring, considering the economic situation of SVEs, with a longer
implementation period; or
ii.
The SVEs could be permitted access to paragraph 8(a) and (b) cumulatively,
with a longer implementation period.
Proposal on Small, Vulnerable Economies by Norway – Room Document (6 June 2006)
For the purposes of the NAMA negotiations, we propose that developing Members
whose share of total NAMA trade (imports plus exports) does not exceed [0.1] per cent for the
time period of 1999-2004 as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 shall be considered a small,
vulnerable economy pursuant to paragraph 21 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.
In the event that NAMA trade data is not available for a Member for any of the years
in this time period, that Member's share of total NAMA trade shall be calculated by the
Secretariat using the best available data.
We propose that the developing Members who meet the above criteria will bind
[100] per cent of their non agricultural tariffs. The average bound tariff level of a Member
being considered a small, vulnerable economy will not exceed [X] per cent after the
implementation period. In meeting this requirement, beneficiaries would make minimum
reductions of [Y] per cent on individual tariff lines.50
48
The additional [X] percentage points will depend on the share of NAMA trade to be agreed in the
selection criteria. These [X] percentage points would be higher if the threshold of NAMA trade is lower, and
vice versa.
49
Grouping includes Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, South Africa,
Tunisia and Venezuela.
50
The values of X and Y should be set at appropriate levels with the objective to ensure that the SVEs
make a contribution that goes beyond the contribution to be made by the Members covered by paragraph 6.
The values of X and Y are related. The more stringent the average requirement, the less stringent will
be the line by line reduction requirement, and vice versa. Mathematically, this implies that the lower X is the
lower Y will be. The exact levels of these variables will be determined by Members.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 55
7.
Treatment of Small, Vulnerable Economies in the NAMA Negotiations, Proposal by the
SVEs – (15 June 2006)
4.
The following principles have guided the revision of the SVEs treatment proposal:

SVEs should not be penalised 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 proponent's 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.

There is no justification for all SVEs binding at a lower average than other
members whose economies are at similar levels of development.
5.
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:
6.
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
[….]
[….]
7.
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
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 56
8.
In meeting this requirement, beneficiaries would make minimum reductions of
[ ] per cent on a maximum of [ ] per cent of individual tariff lines
9.
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 [ ].
10.
The implementation of the tariff reduction commitments should be staged over a
longer period than other developing countries in order to ensure a smooth liberalisation
process and not jeopardise the industrial and social development prospects of the small,
vulnerable economies.
8.
Towards NAMA Modalities – TN/MA/W/80 (19 July 2006)
Modalities51
The criteria
With the exception of developed countries, Members having a share of NAMA trade (exports
and imports) of less than [0.1 per cent] of world trade for a reference period of 1999 to 2001,
or best available data, as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may use the following modality
for tariff reduction:
It is understood that this does not create a sub-category of WTO Members.
Chairman's remarks
The criteria
There is consensus on the use of this criterion to determine eligibility for additional
flexibilities as a small, vulnerable economy.
While recognizing that this benchmark establishes only that an economy is small, in terms of
its NAMA trade, Members have acknowledged the difficulties of articulating additional
criteria to establish that economies are also vulnerable and can accept the single criterion.
The proponents have proposed additional criteria related to agricultural trade and total goods
(both NAMA and agriculture) trade. Many Members oppose the use of such criteria, arguing
that this would create a new sub-category of Members. I would note, in this regard, that it is
important for many Members that the treatment of small, vulnerable economies in these
negotiations does not create a precedent for future negotiations.
Finally, it was noted that this criterion should be understood as only a "trigger" for eligibility
– that is, the criterion alone should not define the group of countries that will have access to
these flexibilities. Members will recall that the proponents do not include all countries with
trade below this threshold.
The treatment
There is no consensus on the treatment of small, vulnerable economies.
51
In the reference Paper, there is no text in the modalities concerning the treatment of small economies.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 57
There are two basic options on the table: a paragraph 6-type solution or a paragraph 8-type
solution. The first option has two variations, one put forward by the SVEs proponents and the
second by Norway. The SVE proponents have suggested a banded approach while Norway's
proposal is more similar in structure to paragraph 6, with a single target tariff average. The
second option is to use a paragraph 8-type solution, which would envisage increasing the
flexibilities in paragraph 8. There are different permutations of this option including adding
percentage points to the existing numbers in paragraph 8; removing the trade limitation,
combining sub-paragraph (a) and (b), and by extending the implementation period.
Unfortunately, I am unable to provide much guidance on this issue. I would note that one
factor which has made this discussion difficult is the diverse tariff profiles of the SVE
proponents. Beyond this, I can only repeat my view that a satisfactory contribution from
these Members can be achieved using either the paragraph 8 or paragraph 6 approach. The
central question, therefore, is how great a contribution is required of these Members.
9.
Draft NAMA Modalities – JOB(07)/126 (17 July 2007)
Chairman’s Introduction to the Draft NAMA Modalities
Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs)
32.
In my July 2006 report to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TN/MA/W/80), I
proposed that consensus had been reached on the trigger for access to the flexibilities for
SVEs. Specifically, I noted that Members had agreed to abandon the search for benchmarks
of vulnerability and had accepted a single eligibility criterion based on the value of NAMA
trade, that is less than 0.1 per cent of world trade in non-agricultural products.
33.
On the question of the treatment of SVEs, while Members remained divided - then
and now - on the architecture of the flexibility (a formula tariff reduction with expanded
flexibilities or a target average tariff reduction as proposed by the proponents), they widely
agreed that the central question was the level of contribution to be made by these Members to
the Round.
34.
As regards the architecture of the modality, I have proposed the tariff average
approach, in three tiers based on average bound tariffs, and including a minimum line-by-line
tariff reduction. I believe that this architecture is appropriate because it facilitates
differentiated treatment of a very diverse group of Members. A tiered approach would
provide for some degree of harmonization of tariffs among them, with the Members with the
highest tariffs making the greatest reduction. Moreover, based on my consultations, I believe
that this architecture is the more likely to find consensus, provided the level of contribution to
the Round is satisfactory.
35.
With respect to that contribution, I have proposed target tariff averages of 14, 18 and
22 per cent, together with a minimum line-by-line tariff reduction of 10 per cent on
95 per cent of tariff lines. This would ensure a minimum contribution to the market access
outcome in the Round, while providing a very significant flexibility in how that contribution
is made. SVEs would reduce their average tariffs in reasonable proportion to other
developing countries but would be permitted greater flexibility in how to structure their tariff
schedules. This approach is consistent with the development needs of small, vulnerable
economies.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 58
36.
Special consideration of Fiji is proposed, in view of it’s low level of binding coverage
and the fact that 100 per cent of tariffs lines are to be bound by SVEs.
Draft NAMA Modalities
Small, Vulnerable Economies
13.
With the exception of developed Members, those Members having a share of less
than 0.1 per cent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best
available data as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following modality of
tariff reduction instead of the formula modality which is contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7
above.
(a)
Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:52
(i)
at or above 50 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff lines at an
average level that does not exceed an overall average of 22 per cent;
(ii)
at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their
non-agricultural tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall
average of 18 per cent; and
(iii)
below 30 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff lines at an average
level that does not exceed an overall average 14 per cent.
Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (i).
In addition, 95 per cent of all non-agricultural tariff lines shall be subject to a
minimum cut of 10 per cent.
(b)
All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into force of
the DDA results at initial bound rates.
(c)
The initial bound rates shall be established as follows: for bound tariff lines the existing
bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to this modality
will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.
(d)
The overall binding target average shall be made effective at the end of the
implementation period as follows: the tariff reductions shall be implemented in 9 equal
rate reductions. The first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year
following the entry into force of the DDA results and each successive reduction shall be
made effective on 1 January of each of the following years.
(e)
All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem basis. Existing bindings on a non
ad valorem basis shall be converted to ad valorem equivalents on the basis of the
methodology outlined in document TN/MA/20.
52
See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 59
10.
Submission by Small, Vulnerable Economies on Modalities to
Non-Agricultural Market Access – TN/MA/W/100 (17 January 2008)53 54
Apply
in
PRINCIPLES
1.
SVEs have signalled their willingness to contribute to the current Doha Development
Round, consistent with their ability so to do, and taking into account their trade, economic and
social realities. SVEs should neither be penalized for their liberalization decisions taken thus
far, nor be required to undertake reductions that are disproportionate to the marginal level of
benefits likely to accrue from this Round.
2.
SVEs have verbally, and in written submissions, articulated the principles which have
guided their proposals. These principles emanate from work in the WTO Committee on
Trade and Development over the years as well as from paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration, the July 2004 Framework Agreement and the Hong Kong Ministerial
Declaration.
MODALITIES APPLICABLE TO SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
3.
The current modalities proposed for SVEs do not conform to the principle of less than
full reciprocity in reduction commitments as these modalities require higher levels of
contributions from SVEs, in comparison to other developing countries, and even some
developed countries. These results are inconsistent with the various mandates in this Doha
Development Round on the flexibilities to be accorded to developing countries in general, and
the enhanced flexibilities to be provided to SVEs, in particular, and are therefore
unacceptable.
4.
The SVEs have, in the past, submitted proposals based on 5 bands, taking into
account the tariff dispersion of the proponents. It should be noted that the Chair's proposal
effectively restricts the SVEs proponents to two (2) bands, with the 3 rd band accommodating
SVEs RAMs. However, consistent with the constructive engagement that has characterized
the approach of SVEs thus far; the Group is willing to work within the 3 band approach
outlined by the Chair, so long as such bands adhere to the principles outlined in the various
mandates, including the principle of less than full reciprocity. Acceptance of a 3 band
approach is contingent on adequate flexibilities afforded to SVEs, including the requirement
for maximum average reductions that are less than those of developed countries and which are
consistent with the economic, social, trade and development needs of SVEs.
5.
The flexibility to exempt, at their discretion, 10 per cent of tariff lines from reduction
commitments is also an integral aspect of the flexibilities required by SVEs. This flexibility
is independent of the maximum tariff reduction required of SVEs.
6.
The specific tariff reduction modalities to apply to SVEs are outlined in Annex 1 of
this paper.
53
Bolivia did not accompany this proposal.
This proposal is without prejudice to the rights of those Recently Acceded Members (RAMs) that are
Small, Vulnerable Economies, and the proposals submitted by that Group to specifically address their concerns.
54
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 60
Annex 1
Revised Textual Proposal on the Provisions Applicable to Small, Vulnerable Economies
(a)
Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:
(i)
at or above 50 per cent shall bind their non-agricultural tariff lines at an
average level of [32] per cent. Where this average results in reductions that
are greater than [40] per cent, the Member concerned would be entitled to
apply lesser reductions, at its discretion, in keeping with this maximum
average reduction of [40] per cent.
(ii)
at or above 30 per cent but below 50 at per cent shall bind their nonagricultural tariff lines at an average level of [28] per cent. Where this
average results in reductions that are greater than [30] per cent, the Member
concerned would be entitled to apply lesser reductions, at its discretion, in
keeping with this maximum average reduction of [30] per cent.
Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (i).
In addition, 90 per cent of all non-agricultural tariff lines shall be subject to a
minimum cut of 5 per cent.
11.
(b)
SVEs with a binding coverage of 50 per cent or less shall have the flexibility to
maintain [10 per cent] of tariff lines unbound.
(c)
The implementation period for Small, Vulnerable Economies shall be [2] years longer
than that for other developing countries.
Draft Modalities
(8 February 2008)
for
Non-Agricultural
Market
Access
-
TN/MA/W/103
Draft Modalities
Small, Vulnerable Economies
13.
With the exception of developed Members, those Members having a share of less than
0.1 per cent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best
available data as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following
modality of tariff reduction instead of the formula modality which is contained in
paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above.
(a)
Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:55
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind all of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an
average level that does not exceed an overall average of [22 -32] per cent;
(ii) at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their
non-agricultural tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall
average of [18-28] per cent; and
55
See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 61
(iii) below 30 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff lines at an average
level that does not exceed an overall average [14-20] per cent and shall apply
a minimum line-by-line reduction of [5-10] per cent on [90-95] per cent of all
non-agricultural tariff lines.
Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (a) (i).
(b)
All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into force
of the DDA results at initial bound rates. Fiji shall have the flexibility to maintain
10 per cent of non-agricultural tariff lines unbound.
(c)
The initial bound rates shall be established as follows: for bound tariff lines the
existing bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to
this modality will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.
(d)
The overall binding target average shall be made effective at the end of the
implementation period as follows: the tariff reductions shall be implemented in
[9] equal rate reductions. The first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of
the year following the entry into force of the DDA results and each successive
reduction shall be made effective on 1 January of each of the following years, except
for lines covered under 13(e) where the first reduction shall be implemented on
1 January of the year following completion of the grace period.
(e)
For those Recently Acceded Members applying this modality, a grace period of
3 years shall be applied on those lines on which accession commitments are still being
implemented. This grace period shall begin as of the date of full implementation of
the accession commitment on that tariff line.
(f)
All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem basis. Existing bindings on a non
ad valorem basis shall be converted to ad valorem equivalents on the basis of the
methodology outlined in document TN/MA/20.
Chairman's Comments
There is agreement on the basic architecture and flexibility has been expressed by Members on
the target tariff averages proposed in the July text. Issues to resolve include:



Capping: in an effort to find consensus, SVE proponents have proposed higher target
averages in exchange for withdrawing their proposal for caps in the average percentage
reduction from bound rates – specifically, a 40 per cent cap (a)(i) and 30 per cent cap in
(a)(ii). There is not wide support for the idea of caps, but some Members have expressed a
willingness to consider additional "bands" in (a) to address the concerns of SVE Members
most disproportionately affected by the current architecture.
Minimum line-by-line cut: SVE proponents proposed a minimum line-by-line tariff cut,
but I have detected little real interest in this additional modality, except in respect of
(a)(iii) since this may be the only contribution of some Members in that band.
Bolivia: an informal proposal was submitted by Bolivia arguing that, in view of their
exceptional economic circumstances, they should be granted the flexibility to substantially
preserve (not specified) their current bound tariff rates. Members have had little
opportunity to consider this proposal and I am unable to assess their support.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 62
12.
Submission
by
Small,
Vulnerable
Economies
on
Modalities
Applicable to Non-Agricultural Market Access56 - JOB(08)/26 (11 April 2008)
"13. With the exception of developed Members, those Members having a share of less than
0.1 per cent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best available data
as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following modality of tariff reduction
instead of the formula modality which is contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above.
(a) Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:57
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
at or above 50 per cent shall bind all of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an average
level that does not exceed an overall average of [22 -32] per cent;
at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural
tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall average of
[18 28] per cent; and
below 30 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff lines at an average level
that does not exceed an overall average [14-20] per cent and shall apply a minimum
line-by-line reduction of [5-10] per cent on [90-95] per cent of all non-agricultural
tariff lines.
Countries which fall under 13 (a)(i), shall not undertake reduction commitments above
40 per cent, and those which fall under 13 (a)(ii) shall not undertake reduction
commitments above 30 per cent.
Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (a)(i).
(b) All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into force of the
DDA results at initial bound rates. Fiji shall have the flexibility to maintain 10 per cent of
non-agricultural tariff lines unbound.
(c) The initial bound rates shall be established as follows: for bound tariff lines the existing
bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to this modality will
determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.
(d) The overall binding target average shall be made effective at the end of the implementation
period as follows: the tariff reductions shall be implemented in [9] equal rate reductions
10 years. The first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year following the
entry into force of the DDA results and each successive reduction shall be made effective on
1 January of each of the following years, except for lines covered under 13(e) where the first
reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year following completion of the grace
period.
(e) For those Recently Acceded Members applying this modality, a grace period of 3 years shall
be applied on those lines on which accession commitments are still being implemented.
This grace period shall begin as of the date of full implementation of the accession
commitment on that tariff line.
56
Bolivia could not join the proponents of TN/MA/W/100 and therefore is not able to accompany the
present proposal.
57
See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 63
(f) All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem basis. Existing bindings on a non ad valorem
basis shall be converted to ad valorem equivalents on the basis of the methodology outlined
in document TN/MA/20."
This proposal is based on the Revised Modalities text presented by the Chair of the NAMA
Negotiating Group, on 8 February 2008, and refers only to the provisions established for
Small Vulnerable Economies, without prejudice to Member’s positions on related issues.
13.
Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural
TN/MA/W/103/Rev.1 (20 May 2008)
Market
Access
Second
Revision
-
Small, Vulnerable Economies
13.
With the exception of developed Members, those Members having a share of less than
0.1 per cent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best
available data as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following
modality of tariff reduction instead of the formula modality which is contained in
paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above.
Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:58
(a)
(i)
at or above 50 per cent shall bind all of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an
average level that does not exceed an overall average of [22 - 32] per cent [or
shall reduce their average bound tariff by 40 per cent, whichever is the lesser
reduction];
(ii)
at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their
non-agricultural tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall
average of [18-28] per cent [or shall reduce their average bound tariff by
30 per cent, whichever is the lesser reduction]; and
(iii)
below 30 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff lines at an
average level that does not exceed an overall average [14-20] per cent and
shall apply a minimum line-by-line reduction of [5-10] per cent on
[90-95] per cent of all non-agricultural tariff lines.
Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (a)(i).
[As an exception, Bolivia shall apply [
bound tariff rates].
58
] which shall substantially preserve its
(b)
All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into
force of the DDA results at initial bound rates. Fiji shall have the flexibility to
maintain 10 per cent of non-agricultural tariff lines unbound.
(c)
The initial bound rates shall be established as follows: for bound tariff lines the
existing bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to
this modality will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.
See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 64
(d)
The overall binding target average shall be made effective at the end of the
implementation period as follows: the tariff reductions shall be implemented in
[9-11] equal rate reductions. The first reduction shall be implemented on
1 January of the year following the entry into force of the DDA results and each
successive reduction shall be made effective on 1 January of each of the following
years, except for lines covered under 13(e) where the first reduction shall be
implemented on 1 January of the year following completion of the grace period.
(e)
For those Recently Acceded Members applying this modality, a grace period of
3 years shall be applied on those lines on which accession commitments are not
fully implemented before entry into force of the DDA results. This grace period
shall begin as of the date of full implementation of the accession commitment on
that tariff line.
(f)
All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem basis. Existing bindings on a non
ad valorem basis shall be converted to ad valorem equivalents on the basis of the
methodology outlined in document TN/MA/20.
Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural Market Access – TN/MA/W/103/Rev.2
(10 July 2008)
14.
Small, Vulnerable Economies
13.
With the exception of developed Members, those Members having a share of less than
0.1 percent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best
available data as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following modality
of tariff reduction instead of the formula modality which is contained in paragraphs 5, 6
and 7 above.
(a)
Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:59
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind all of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an
average level that does not exceed an overall average of [28-32] per cent;
(ii) at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural
tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall average of
[24-28] per cent;
(iii) at or above 20 per cent but below 30 shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff
lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall average 18 per cent; and
(iv) below 20 per cent, shall apply a minimum line-by-line reduction of 5 per cent on
95 per cent of all non-agricultural tariff lines or bind at the overall average that
would result from that line-by-line reduction.
As an exception, Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (a)(i).
59
See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 65
As an exception, Gabon shall be deemed to fall under (a)(iii) and shall engage in GATT
Article XXVIII negotiations to reach the overall target average of 18 per cent.
As an exception, Bolivia shall not be required but is encouraged to apply the modalities
in paragraph 13 and shall annually notify the Council for Trade in Goods steps taken to
progressively implement these modalities.
(b)
All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into force of
the DDA results at initial bound rates. As an exception, Fiji shall have the flexibility to
maintain 10 per cent of non-agricultural tariff lines unbound.
(c)
The initial bound rates shall be established as follows: for bound tariff lines the existing
bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to this modality
will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.
(d)
The overall binding target average shall be made effective at the end of the
implementation period as follows: the tariff reductions shall be implemented in 11 equal
rate reductions. The first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year
following the entry into force of the DDA results and each successive reduction shall be
made effective on 1 January of each of the following years, except for lines covered
under 13(e) where the first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year
following completion of the grace period.
(e)
For those Recently Acceded Members applying this modality, a grace period of 3 years
shall be applied on those lines on which accession commitments are not fully
implemented before entry into force of the DDA results. This grace period shall begin as
of the date of full implementation of the accession commitment on that tariff line.
(f)
All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem basis. Existing bindings on a non ad valorem
basis shall be converted to ad valorem equivalents on the basis of the methodology
outlined in document TN/MA/20.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 66
VI.
COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES SPECIAL SESSION
1.
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.
2.
Outline of an SVE position on Possible Elements of a Services Text (23 January 2008)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, 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
I.
General Considerations
1.
As Small Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) have previously indicated, the co-sponsoring
delegations are prepared to engage constructively in the exercise of developing a Services
outcome for the negotiations, although not proponents of a Services text. SVEs believe that
the preparation of a services outcome could be addressed where texts are being developed in
other areas of the Doha agenda, and where concrete progress in Agriculture and NAMA has
been registered. In terms of timing, a possible services text should only be tabled after the
release of final modalities in Agriculture and NAMA have been tabled.
2.
The process of developing a text should be multilateral, fully inclusive and
transparent, with regular open-ended sessions. The development of a text must moreover
respect the current architecture of the GATS and its positive list approach. We will therefore
not support any attempts that propose to bind current levels of market access and national
treatment, nor to introduce any further notion of benchmarks within these negotiations. We
are also not supportive of the desire that some delegations have to establish a level of
comparability among the Services, Agriculture and Non-Agricultural Market Access
Negotiations (NAMA).
3.
The Hong Kong Declaration and Annex C contain the substantive guidelines and
outcomes for the conclusion of the Services negotiations through specified Objectives,
Approaches and Timelines. As such, we believe that the level of ambition for the services
negotiations has already been established, and is based on a very delicate balance. With the
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 67
suspension of the Doha negotiations in July 2006, prior to the tabling of a second round of
revised offers on 31 July 2006, many of the intended objectives and timelines outlined remain
unfulfilled.
4.
SVEs consider that there is a need to be cautious in the preparation of a text in
services in order not to reopen the delicate balance achieved in the Hong Kong outcome
through the negotiating process. SVEs further consider that the objectives of a services
outcome at this stage should be related to the unfinished business remaining from the
July 2006 suspension and shall take into account developments which have taken place since
the Hong Kong Ministerial.
5.
Based on the general considerations highlighted above, the elements that SVEs
consider feasible and desirable to include in a possible text in Services to be presented when
conditions are met, are the following:II.
Possible Elements
1.
Reaffirmation of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration and Annex C.
2.
Dates for the tabling of revised offers and final schedules, which should reflect
timeframes developed for the overall round (i.e. no less than 90 days following the
establishment of modalities and presentation of draft schedules in Agriculture and NAMA
respectively), and should be in accordance with the Hong Kong timelines, including through
sequencing.
3.
Developing country participation in services trade shall be facilitated through the
liberalisation of market access in sectors and modes of supply of export interest to them,
particularly as reflected in their specific requests.
4.
The process of liberalisation shall take into account the level of development of
individual Members both in overall and individual sectors, and accord developing countries
the flexibilities provided in Article XIX of the GATS for opening fewer sectors, liberalising
fewer transactions and extending market access in line with their development situation.
5.
Within the context of paragraph 5 of Annex C and the mandate to develop disciplines
on domestic regulation, a factual account of the progress attained, should be registered.
6.
For GATS Rules, a factual account of the state of play should be registered as well as
the need for continued focused discussions in this area.
7.
Further to the mandate of paragraph 7 of Annex C, recognition of the number of
collective requests established, the number of participants, and the number of meetings
undertaken, may be provided.
8.
Reflection of paragraph 8 of Annex C: Members shall continue to give due
consideration to proposals on trade related concerns of small economies.
9.
Revised timelines should also be developed for the operationalisation of LDC
Modalities prior to the tabling of final offers as provided in paragraph 11 e) of Annex C.
10.
S&D proposals should be addressed with appropriate recommendations to the
General Council.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 68
11.
The importance of technical assistance and capacity building should be underscored
through Members' request to the Secretariat to provide a report of targeted technical
assistance, and providing further guidance, if required.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 69
VII.
WORKING PARTY ON DOMESTIC REGULATION
1.
Services - Trade-Related Concerns of Small, Vulnerable Economies in the Working
Party on Domestic Regulation - JOB(06)/66/Rev.2 (10 July 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.
Small, vulnerable economies recommend that the following elements be included in any
future disciplines on domestic regulation in services.
III.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS
VULNERABLE ECONOMIES
A.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
B.
THE
CONCERNS
OF
SMALL,
(i)
These disciplines shall not affect nor limit a Member's right to regulate, and
shall not prevent or prescribe the development and adoption of future
legislation to meet Members' national policy objectives.
(ii)
Developing country Members shall implement the disciplines that require
adjustment of existing domestic regulation and/or the adoption of new
implementation mechanisms to the extent consistent with their financial,
administrative and institutional capabilities and according to their size and
level of development.
(iii)
Developing country Members shall be accorded adequate time frames to
upgrade their legislative, regulatory, administrative and institutional capacity
to implement these disciplines. Members shall provide technical assistance
and capacity-building assistance in order to help developing country
Members to develop such capacity.
(iv)
These disciplines shall apply to a Member's measures only to the extent that
these affect sectors, sub-sectors and modes of supply covered by the
respective Member's schedule of commitments.
(v)
These disciplines shall not prevent a Member from establishing measures or
mechanisms to support the development of regional economic integration.
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
(i)
The establishment of qualification requirements by the competent authorities
shall not be limited to the recognition and verification of specific diplomas,
test scores or the like, but shall include where possible, the opportunity to
fulfil such requirements by the recognition and verification of relevant
experience and other education methods for establishing a provider's
competence to supply the respective services.
(ii)
To ensure that qualification requirements do not in themselves constitute
barriers to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 70
building assistance in order to help developing country Members and their
suppliers meet such requirements.
C.
D.
E.
F.
QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES
(i)
Fees charged by the competent authorities should not be an impediment in
themselves to practising the relevant activity. Developing country Members
are not precluded from recovering fees where fees are utilised to meet
national policy objectives.
(ii)
Procedures for the verification of qualifications shall be limited to those
required to establish the minimum qualifications required for supplying the
service.
(iii)
Members shall ensure that its competent authorities provide for clear and
practical mechanisms for recognizing as being comparable, education or
experience obtained, requirements met, or licences or certifications granted in
the territory of another Member.
(iv)
To ensure that qualification procedures do not in themselves constitute
barriers to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity
building assistance in order to help developing country Members and their
suppliers meet such procedures.
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS
(i)
Fees charged by the competent authorities should not be an impediment in
themselves to practising the relevant activity. Developing country Members
are not precluded from recovering fees where fees are utilised to meet
national policy objectives.
(ii)
To ensure that licensing requirements do not in themselves constitute barriers
to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity building
assistance in order to help developing country Members and their suppliers
meet such requirements.
LICENSING PROCEDURES
(i)
Members shall ensure that licensing procedures applied by its competent
authorities are of minimal complexity and entail minimal costs for meeting
requirements and fulfilling procedures for entry into export markets.
Members may grant reduced licensing and other related fees to service
providers from developing country Members.
(ii)
To ensure that licensing procedures do not in themselves constitute barriers to
trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity building
assistance in order to help developing country Members and their suppliers
meet such procedures.
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
(i)
Members shall in reasonable time publish a notice in a publication, print or
electronic, and notify other Members through the Secretariat, of the
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 71
establishment and application of measures relating to national or international
technical standards relating to services and service providers.
G.
(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 in the area of services.
(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 standardisation bodies should
ensure maximum transparency of relevant processes for the benefit of other
Members.
TRANSPARENCY
(i)
Members shall ensure access for service suppliers of other Members to
relevant information on legislative, regulatory and administrative measures
relating to 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.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 72
VIII.
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES
1.
Fisheries Subsidies - TN/RL/W/136 (14 July 2003)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Fiji Islands, Guyana, the Maldives, Papua New
Guinea, Solomon Islands, St Kitts and Nevis.
Small vulnerable coastal states therefore seek appropriate special and differential treatment in
the current negotiations on fisheries subsidies disciplines. Article 1 of the ASCM shall be
clarified to explicitly exclude the following from definition of subsidy:
2.
(1)
Access Fees and Development Assistance - any development assistance granted to
small vulnerable coastal states by developed or more advanced developing countries
to facilitate sustainable management.
(2)
Fiscal Incentives to Domestication and Fisheries Development - incentives applied
by small vulnerable coastal states for the development and domestication of their
fisheries.
(3)
Artisanal Fisheries - those measures undertaken by governments of small vulnerable
coastal states to assist their artisanal fisheries sector.
WTO Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines – Architecture on 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.
16.
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;
(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.
17.
We propose that the special and differential treatment provisions of the ASCM for
Least Developed Countries be maintained in future disciplines.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 73
3.
Special and Differential Treatment in the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations60: Views of
the Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - TN/RL/W/210/Rev.2 (22 June 2007)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji,
Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, and
Solomon Islands.
A.
INTERPRETING THE MINISTERIAL MANDATES ON FISHERIES SUBSIDIES
The Doha Ministerial Declaration states that "In the context of these negotiations,
participants shall also aim to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies,
taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countries".
The Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration noted that there is broad agreement that the Group
should strengthen disciplines on subsidies in the fisheries sector, including through the
prohibition of certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and call on Participants promptly to undertake further detailed work to, inter alia,
establish the nature and extent of those disciplines, including transparency and enforceability.
Appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and
least-developed Members should be an integral part of the fisheries subsidies negotiations,
taking into account the importance of this sector to development priorities, poverty reduction,
and livelihood and food security concerns:
i.
The Co-sponsors of this document are of the view that the Ministerial mandates give
clear instruction and guidance to negotiators on the issue of Special and Differential
Treatment (S&DT) for developing and least developed countries. The Hong Kong
Ministerial mandate specifically reflects the need for S&DT to be an integral
component of the disciplines and recognises that the fisheries sector is of importance to
developing countries for a number of socio-economic reasons.
ii.
With this in mind, S&DT must be more than an instrument to assist developing
countries to implement the emerging rules, but must also allow developing countries
the opportunity to take advantage of the natural resources in their maritime space and
enhance their level of productivity in the area of fisheries.
iii.
In this respect S&DT in the fisheries disciplines must be more than longer
implementation periods and must instead support the development of the fisheries
sector in small, vulnerable economies and their potential trade in fisheries products and
must not impede their capacity enhancement, management initiatives, or the processing
and value added components of the industry in these economies.
iv.
The co-sponsors of this proposal recognise the environmental and sustainability effects
of over fishing and overcapacity and are willing to examine possible disciplines which
seek to minimise environmental and ecological damage so long as they are mutually
supportive of the developmental priorities of small, vulnerable economies and other
similarly situated developing countries.
60
This document is an attempt to respond to the call of the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules for
brainstorming on S&DT issues and does not preclude the co-sponsors of this document from submitting any
additional proposals on these matters.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 74
B.
SHOULD THE PROVISION OF S&DT BE CONDITIONAL?
i.
The co-sponsors of this document view S&DT as a fundamental principle of all WTO
Agreements for developing countries and should be accorded without conditions
attached. However, the co-sponsors recognise that given the environmental and
sustainability element of the fisheries negotiations, there have been proposals which
recommend the provision of S&DT on the basis of the individual country either
acquiring certain management capacity or on ideas such as status of the fisheries and
total allowable catch. Such conditionality would depart from WTO principles for
according S&DT.
ii.
The co-sponsors recognise that there are wide divergences between the productive and
trading capacity of developing countries in the fisheries sector and in the interests of
sustainability of the marine resources are willing to consider carefully crafted
parameters for S&DT which could meet this objective. It is clear however that small,
vulnerable economies, LDCs and some other developing countries have had such a
minimum impact on over fishing and overcapacity that the proposed restrictions on
these countries would be unduly punitive and would have the detrimental effect of
impeding the legitimate growth of their fisheries industry, thereby leading to industry
regression and stagnation.
iii.
An effective management regime for fisheries is an important component of a country's
fisheries policy. However, it must be recognised that not all developing countries,
especially the SVEs and the LDCs, have the capacity to enact a management regime
which can produce statistics, analyse data or secure its waters from IUU fishing to the
extent that major fishing nations do. In light of this relatively limited capacity, any
S&DT conditionality in the area of management regimes should not unduly punish
these countries for their capacity constraints and should be examined in light of their
relatively small productive and trading share of world fisheries.
iv.
The FAO Code of Conduct has been suggested as an appropriate guideline for countries
to follow with regards to their management regimes and the co-sponsors of this
document concur that it has many important elements. However as it is a voluntary
instrument, the Code of Conduct should not be simply imported into a WTO agreement
as a binding discipline. Rather it may be appropriate for developing countries to
illustrate the existence of a management plan, either a national management plan or a
regional management plan. If the architecture of these plans is found to be significantly
lacking, the developed countries and international organisations with necessary levels
of capacity and competence in these areas for improvement should provide technical
and financial assistance to these developing countries to enhance their management
plans.
v.
Environmental criteria such as the level of exploitation of the fisheries species or the
level of exploitation in certain waters have been suggested as conditions for developing
countries to use certain subsidies. The co-sponsors are concerned about the accuracy of
data and unwarranted penalisation of small economies as a result of the exploitation of
fisheries species outside of their waters by larger fleets of countries with greater
capacity. The idea of utilising total allowable catch as a mechanism is one which must
also take into account the need to accord flexibility for developing countries as well as
to safeguard the future growth prospects of their fishing industry.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 75
C.
ARTISANAL AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES
i.
The co-sponsors of this document recognise that there has been a great degree of
discussion on this issue within the negotiating group. Despite this, there does not
appear to be any agreement on a definition for these types of fisheries nor how they
should be treated in the disciplines.
ii.
SVEs have consistently stated that their domestic definitions and practical industry
realities do not recognise a clear distinction between artisanal and small scale fisheries.
In the majority of cases there is a small profit trade involved in the fisheries and in
some cases it is part of a small productive chain especially in those countries dependent
on tourism. These small fisheries may also be organised into cooperatives and hence
there could be an economic component to the fisheries transactions notwithstanding the
traditional nature of the fishery and its livelihood and food security aspect.
iii.
With this in mind the co-sponsors believe that any definition of artisanal must take into
account this economic aspect if it is really to result in any benefits for the developing
countries. It has been recognised however that a cumulative view of small artisanal and
small scale fishing fleets may result in certain environmental and sustainability impacts
and we are willing to further discuss how this impact can be minimised including
discussions on the assistance which can be provided by relevant international
organisations and developed country members in this area.
iv.
Some proposals have sought to use physical characteristics for determining artisanal
and small scale fishing and the co-sponsors are of the view that any definition based on
physical attributes should recognise the following if it is to take the reality of SVEs
artisanal and small scale fisheries into account:

Any definition using the length of vessel should take into account the domestic
definitions used by SVEs,
Allowances should be made for a certain level of modernisation such as engine
horsepower of up to 300hp, the use of navigation and safety equipment and
mechanised fishing gear as improved technology becomes available.

v.
Socio-economic considerations must also be taken into account if seeking to define
artisanal and small scale fisheries such as the importance of the sector to employment,
food security, poverty reduction and nutrition.
vi.
The co-sponsors recognise that the issue of "small programmes" has also been raised in
the negotiations. Any treatment for "small programmes" should be a component of the
S&DT for developing countries and its architecture could be based on a level of
financial amount, the size of the fleet and/or the share of the country in world fisheries
trade.
D.
i.
OTHER AREAS OF S&DT
The co-sponsors believe that there are other areas in the disciplines where S&DT
should apply. These include:
1.
2.
3.
appropriate flexibilities for industrial and semi-industrial fishing for SVEs
notification requirements
length of time to implement the agreement
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 76
4.
5.
greater opportunity for consultation before any DSB cases
technical assistance and capacity building for enhancing management
regimes
The co-sponsors of this document are willing to continue to work with other members
to find solutions in these areas which take into account the trade, development and
environmental elements of the fisheries negotiations.
4.
Drafting Proposal on Issues Relating to Article III.4 ("Special and Differential
Treatment of Developing Country Members") of the Fisheries Subsidies Annex to the
SCM Agreement as Proposed by the Chair in TN/RL/W/213 - TN/RL/GEN/158
(22 May 2008)
Proponents: ACP and SVEs Groups
6.
In line with the above considerations, it is suggested to modify Article III.4 as
follows:
III.4.1 "Members recognize that developing country Members, especially
least-developed countries and small, vulnerable economies, will face serious
challenges in complying with the requirements of this Annex, in particular as
regards the conditions and criteria set forth in this Article and in Articles V
("Fisheries Management") and VI ("Notifications and Surveillance").
III.4.2 Members recognize that the ability of developing country Members,
especially least-developed countries and small, vulnerable economies, to
adopt, implement and sustain measures necessary for complying with the
requirements of this Annex may depend on the effective and timely provision
of technical assistance by Members to developing country Members in
accordance with their demands and needs.
Members recognize that
developing country Members will have different implementation needs and
capacities and to this end, developing countries which indicate a need for
technical assistance shall be provided with such assistance through bilateral
processes, through new and/or existing WTO technical assistance and support
mechanisms and through other mechanisms of relevant international and
regional organisations.
III.4.3 The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures shall
establish a Sub-Committee dealing exclusively with issues related to technical
assistance and support programs under this Annex, specifically as regards
fisheries management systems and measures related thereto.
The
Sub-Committee shall coordinate the requests from developing country
Members for technical assistance and support programs and shall review the
effectiveness of the technical assistance provided to developing country
Members.61 The Sub-Committee shall periodically report its findings to the
61
The Sub-Committee, in consultation with the developing Member concerned, shall identify any
additional needs of that Member for technical assistance and every effort shall be made to ensure that
appropriate technical assistance is provided to that Member. The role of the Sub-Committee shall not be to
determine the validity of a developing country's request for technical assistance.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 77
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the Committee on
Trade and Development.62
5.
Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - Statement on Key Aspects Of Article III of the
Fisheries Subsidies Annex- TN/RL/W/226/Rev.5 (22 September 2008)
Proponents: Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Honduras,
Jamaica, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines,
and Tonga.
3.
Article III on Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT) is a critical element in the
balance of rights and obligations in the Annex and although we welcome some elements of
Article III we remain concerned that some of the conditionality provisions contained therein
effectively prevent SVEs from benefiting from exemptions that are consistent with the
realities of their fisheries, the types of subsidies which these economies offer and the
developmental path which these countries wish to follow to allow for diversification of their
economies.
4.
This concern is most pronounced in relation to the need for SVEs to benefit from an
exemption from the prohibition of subsidies in Article I.1.c of the Chair's text. These forms
of subsidies which include, inter alia, operational costs for fuel, ice, bait, license fees,
insurance and subsidies for landing, handling or in-or near port processing activities are
exactly the forms of government assistance which SVEs could provide to their fishers. These
are the specific forms of assistance which the SVEs have consistently stated should be
allowed for those economies which have negligible or no impact on over fishing or over
capacity. In the experience of the SVEs, these forms of operational subsidies are more
affordable and manageable for our economies given our small administrations. Moreover, in
terms of sustainability aspects, we are able to better monitor and regulate these forms of
government support unlike capital subsidies (e.g. vessel construction) which are far more
costly to remove after the fact (e.g. decommissioning schemes). Subsidies for processing
activities are also crucial elements of our development trajectories and are consistent with our
plans to progress into more diverse, value added components of the fisheries production cycle.
5.
In formal and verbal submissions to the negotiating group, the SVEs and other
developing countries have expressed the need for additional flexibility regarding the
programmes under Article 1.1.c. The SVEs have made reference to the need to increase the
length of the vessel in Article III.2.b.2 to 25 metres to take into account the size of the small
scale fishing vessels used in our maritime space. Requests have also been made by
developing countries to benefit from an exemption from Article I.1.c subsidies.
6.
Some form of additional flexibility regarding Article I.1.c subsidies is necessary if
these fisheries subsidies disciplines are to have real and practical meaning for the developing
small island and coastal states of the WTO. These countries rely on fisheries for
diversification, food security and livelihoods, and their miniscule share of global trade and
marine capture fisheries demonstrates that they do not, either individually or cumulatively,
impact on over fishing and over capacity. It is clear to the SVEs that 'one size does not fit all'
and that consequently in the context of Article I.1.c subsidies a degree of additional flexibility
in S&DT is necessary considering the profound importance of fisheries to their national
socio-economic development; noting that the SVEs have not requested a substantial roll-back
of the fisheries management principles established in Article V.
62
Future discussion would be required on the procedures to be followed if a developing country
member does not receive the requested technical assistance.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 78
7.
The SVEs are currently undertaking additional technical work with the aim of
proposing, if necessary and at the appropriate time, additional options to take our concerns
into account in a revised text. This current document has been tabled in the Negotiating
Group to reiterate our needs and to call on the Negotiating Group to look for appropriate
solutions to confront these concerns.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 79
IX.
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON TRADE FACILITATION
1.
Regional Approaches to Trade Facilitation:
(10 March 2008)
Enquiry Points - TN/TF/W/129/Rev.2
Proponents: Barbados, Cuba, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands.
I.
TO BE PLACED IN THE PREAMBLE/INTRODUCTORY SECTION OF A
POSSIBLE TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT
Small Economies/developing countries which are members of a Customs Union or a
regional economic arrangement may adopt regional approaches to assist in the
implementation of their obligations under the Trade Facilitation Agreement including
through the establishment and use of regional bodies.
II.
TO BE PLACED IN THE SECTION ON "ESTABLISHMENT OF ENQUIRY
POINTS"
Small Economies/developing countries which are members of a Customs Union or a
regional economic arrangement shall have the option of establishing one or more enquiry
points at the regional level.63 The existence of a notified regional enquiry point would satisfy
the requirements for the existence of an enquiry point under this current provision.
III.
TO BE PLACED IN THE SECTION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND
CAPACITY BUILDING
Members and the WTO, within its competence, shall provide technical and financial
assistance, on mutually agreed terms, to small economies/developing countries to support the
establishment, modification and maintenance of these national and regional enquiry points.
Members and the WTO shall consider the advantages of providing assistance to the
regional body, where one exists within a Customs Union or regional economic arrangement,
which will assist those members in the implementation of their obligations under the Trade
Facilitation agreement.
63
It is understood that individual Members benefiting from these recommendations will continue to be
legally responsible and accountable for their individual notifications and other obligations under these
Agreements.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 80
X.
COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
HISTORIC EVOLUTION
1.
Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures - G/SCM/W/535 and Add.1 (12 April 2006 and 20 July 2006)64
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea,
St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
6.
The sponsors of this proposal believe that the objective of "fuller integration of small,
vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system" (WT/L/579, paragraph 1(d) –
2 August 2004) could be achieved in part by reaffirming the Article 27.4 procedures and
extensions within the context of the provisions of 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.
7.
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)’.
8.
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).
2.
Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 and 537) – JOB(07)/49 (18 April 2007)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and
Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Statement by Barbados on behalf of the Proponents of W/535 Add. 1
at the Informal Meeting of the SCM Committee, 8 March 2007
7.
This intervention is delivered on behalf of the proponents of W/535 Add 1.
64
While the proponents of G/SCM/W/535 and Add.1 are small, vulnerable economies, the Committee
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) does not treat this issue as specific to small, vulnerable
economies. A similar proposal was submitted to the Committee on SCM from the delegations of Costa Rica,
Jordan, Panama and Uruguay (G/SCM/W/537, G/SCM/W/537/Add.1, Add.2 and Add.3).
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 81
8.
I understand that you wish to structure the discussions today around three areas which
you have deemed to be key issues within these discussions and I would hence wish to give a
brief overview of some of our bilateral encounters and then make brief comments on each
subject consistent with the organisation of this session.
9.
At the last informal meeting of the Committee on 15 February we delivered a
statement that sought to recognise the positive interaction which we have been having with
some Members of the Committee and to indicate the areas where we saw there being some
form of convergence and also aspects where work was required to bring positions closer
together. We are pleased to say that this positive interaction and willingness to engage has
been maintained although the discussions are becoming more precise and substantive in
nature.
10.
We have also enhanced our interaction with the W/537 proponents and have
consequently begun to hold joint bilateral and plurilateral meetings. The Members we have
dialogued with continue to express a willingness to work towards an April conclusion of this
matter but we do recognise that there needs to be a narrowing of the gap on some key issues.
11.
Before I speak to the issue of the timeframe, which is the first item on the agenda, I
wish to reiterate on behalf of all of the proponents that in reacting to our proposals and
concessions it is important to remain cognisant of the reality of our economies, not only in
terms of size and vulnerability but also the ability and capacity to enact onerously strict
regulations within a relatively short timeframe. At the last meeting we stated that the aim
should be to reach a mutually agreeable end point without expecting the proponents to
undertake actions which would unnecessarily increase the burden on our economies and
governments. If a straight path can take us to the same destination as an obstacle course we
urge members to give consideration to the unencumbered route.
12.
We shall continue to meet bilaterally and informally and will indeed seek to enhance
our level of engagement. During the last series of bilateral meetings we held, we floated some
elements of what we consider could form integral components of an eventual decision. The
reaction to these elements ranged from clear support for some initiatives, questions and
clarifications for others and calls for strengthened language and provisions in other areas. The
proponents have made what we consider to be serious and difficult concessions but are still
faced with not knowing exactly what other members would like to see in an eventual decision.
Once again we urge members to forward any text or ideas which they feel could address their
legitimate concerns.
The Duration of a Possible Extension of the Procedures in G/SCM/39
13.
The Committee would recall that we had requested an extension until 2018 in our
original proposal of W/535. Today we are prepared to make a concession on this aspect of the
proposal and move to 2015 which is a request for eight years rather than 11 years. This
request is consistent with the extension given in the Uruguay Round. On this issue we should
indicate that the timeframe is one pillar in this discussion and should be seen as related to the
other areas of the negotiations such as the conditions of extension and any commitments
which the proponents would be requested to undertake beyond that in the original Uruguay
decision or in the Doha decision.
14.
We presented this concession during the bilateral meetings and although some
members indicated that it was longer than envisioned there did appear to be a willingness to
positively consider the timeframe in line with other conditions of the extension.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 82
Requirements Applicable during the Extended Transition Period
15.
On this matter of conditions of the extension we remain willing to discuss what the
priority areas are for members and to receive clear and specific ideas on what they would wish
to see integrated into a final decision. We have expressed a willingness to integrate technical
assistance into the decision and have proposed draft text reflecting this. We have also
expressed a willingness to bring our programmes into conformity with the SCM agreement
and have also suggested some draft language on this matter. For us these reflect substantial
movement from our position in W/535. Unfortunately other Members were not able to meet
us halfway on these issues and the proponents are currently re-examining their proposals in
light of the discussions.
Whether or not it should be possible for the Members concerned to request another
extension of the transition period
16.
This is a matter that has been raised by some delegations in our informal
deliberations. It is clear that this is a very politically sensitive issue for the proponents and
other parties. From our perspective it is difficult to demarcate this issue from the fact that we
are small developing countries seeking flexibilities and favourable consideration of our trade,
economic and developmental concerns within a development round. Any decision on this
matter has to take these political considerations into account. In any event the proponents
have taken note of the concerns raised by other members although much of our attention will
be focused on attempting to develop conditions in the transition period which would be
acceptable to all members of the Committee.
17.
The proponents extend appreciation to all delegations for their engagement and useful
suggestions during the bilateral process.
Statement by Barbados on behalf of the Proponents of W/535 Add 1
at the Informal Meeting of the SCM Committee, 15 February 2007
18.
This intervention is delivered on behalf of the proponents of W/535/Add.1 and on
their behalf I wish to express thanks to you and the Secretariat for the work that you have been
doing to help us to move this process forward.
19.
In that line I would like to focus on our perceptions and interpretations of where we
stand at present in this process based on the bilateral, plurilateral and informal interactions we
have held with a number of delegations who have expressed particular interest in the proposal.
We must express sincere thanks to all of those Members of the Committee who met with us
informally and who always came to the table with a willingness to engage on possible
solutions to the request for an extension. The proponents have taken note of all suggestions
and concerns and our hope is that we can duly integrate many of these into a final agreed
package. We remain open to discussions with any other members with whom we have not yet
met.
20.
One of the most important conclusions that we have been able to draw from these
encounters is that there is a general consensus to continue and increase the pace of the work on
the proposal. The language that we heard in our meetings is no longer couched in 'ifs' and
'whys' but rather 'when' and 'how'. This is an achievement for the proponents and the
Committee as a whole as it illustrates a willingness to find an appropriate solution and
reaffirms the fact that we have all been negotiating this matter in good faith.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 83
21.
The second equally important assessment is that there is an understanding that a
conclusion by April is possible and desirable and members expressed willingness to work
towards that target date. The reasons for this are many, the schedule of the formal meeting of
the SCM in April, the need for investor confidence and predictability in our economies, the
need to avoid any form of legal or logistical complications regarding the phase out period of
the Doha decision and more importantly and logically the fact that we have all worked steadily
in the introductory phase, and in the Q and A procedures and we believe that there is enough
information and technical work on the table, and enough scope for a mutually beneficial
outcome, for April 2007 to be the outer limits of the timeframe for a conclusion. We
understand that it is not a difficult task to convene the SCM in formal session before April if
the need arises, hence if a resolution can be reached even before the scheduled formal meeting,
this would be preferable.
22.
Other conclusions that we have drawn from these meetings are that the majority of
delegations understand our particular circumstances and many found the answers provided
during the question and answer phase as fostering a greater understanding of the specifics of
our programmes, the relative 'smallness' of the subsidies offered, and the continued importance
of these programmes in our domestic reality both from an economic and social perspective. In
addition it should be recognised that these programmes are in many cases, policy responses to
advice from international organisations that economic diversification in SVES is not only
necessary, but urgent if we are going to able to integrate into the global economy in a
sustainable manner.
23.
It is important that we also recognise that some delegations have indicated that they
have a systemic interest in seeing tightened disciplines on export subsidies even as they
recognise the relatively low, if not completely absent, trade distorting effects of our
programmes. A few other delegations expressed concern based on the possible economic
impact of our programmes on their economies and we continue to be open and willing to
explore this matter bilaterally, based on any statistics or studies that may illustrate that there is
indeed a problem.
24.
The majority of Members have expressed satisfaction with the transparency element
of the current process and as proposed by the proponents in W/535, wish to see these
transparency, standstill, favourability and notification elements maintained. We completely
agree that these elements have been working as envisaged in the 2001 decision and would
hence seek to retain these in a new decision on a further extension. We are of course willing
to engage on any specific areas where Members may feel the transparency and notification
elements can be improved but we seek Members' understanding of our capacity constraints in
this regard.
25.
The issue of the timeframe was one that was widely discussed during our informal
encounters and it has become clear to the proponents that an extension of 11 years to 2018
(IE 11+2) has not gained enough traction on which to move forward. The date was proposed
to coincide with what was originally requested by the proponents in 2001 and to take into
account the importance of these programmes to our developmental trajectory. In the spirit of
negotiation and the importance of concluding this process by April, the proponents have
recognised that there will have to be a compromise on the issue of the timeframe and we are
willing to do this with the understanding that we gained during our bilateral meetings, that
Members would seek to impose stricter conditions on longer timeframes and less oppressive
conditions on shorter timeframes. At this point therefore we should seek to arrive at some
consensus on this matter, recognising the interrelated nature of timeframe and any additional
conditions imposed on the extension. We should reaffirm that we see the two year phase out
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 84
period envisaged in Article 27.4 and in G/SCM/39 as an important component of the decision
hence we don't believe there is any need to negotiate on those final two years.
26.
On the question of possible conditions of an extension, there was also a great degree
of discussion at the informal level on this. You would recall that the proponents had called for
the conditions of a future extension to be identical to those in G/SCM/39 as we felt there was a
general consensus that they were working well. However, in the spirit of cooperation and
given the feedback from these bilateral talks we have realised that there will need to be some
additional discussion on this issue to accommodate the perspectives of all delegations. Yet
again we seek your understanding of our developmental realities when suggesting any possible
conditions. We have had a suggestion that the proponents could look at incorporating a
financial cap on the subsidy amount but there appeared to be some understanding, even on the
part of the members who suggested this, that in reality this would be difficult to craft and
implement and would be unduly onerous. We have heard other suggestions such as a cap on
the number of beneficiaries and on the inclusion of language which illustrates our intention to
make these programmes compatible with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures. These are all concerns that we have taken on board and we will continue to analyse
them technically to determine the practical impact these suggestions may have. The matter of
integrating the provision of technical assistance from the WTO Secretariat into an eventual
decision to assist us in this process is a suggestion that the proponents would be willing to take
on board.
27.
There are some additional comments emanating from the bilaterals which we would
like to suggest as guiding principles for this next phase of negotiations. Unduly harsh, strict
and unnecessary conditions of extension could prove burdensome on our economies and in an
environment where development is the key, our call would be for any conditions to be more
focused on the expected result. Hence, if lesser conditions could be adopted to achieve the
same results as harsher conditions, we would strongly recommend that the application of
manageable conditions be the route taken. We believe that conditions can be applied that
could lead to a resolution for all, without us, as small developing countries, having to renounce
any legal rights under the SCM or without a process that places unnecessary strain on our
capitals.
28.
We also ask that the proponents be recognised for their movement on these matters.
Almost a year ago we proposed what we saw as a simple and workable solution: a
continuation of the procedures in G/SCM/39 until 2018. Today we stand ready to move on
that date of 2018 and we stand ready to incorporate, within limits, certain conditions that could
seek to give comfort to our partners. Although as demandeurs we recognise that ultimately
the responsibility of moving this process along will always lie with us, we do admit that it has
been difficult to convince our capitals to move from our proposal in the absence of any other
clear proposals on the table from others. However, the signals that we received from most of
you are clear and we hope that this meeting will lead to an acceleration of the crafting of a new
decision for extension of our programmes.
29.
The proponents extend appreciation to all delegations for their engagement and useful
suggestions.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 85
3.
Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 and 537) – JOB(07)/50 (19 April 2007)
SVE Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis,
St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines65.
1.
This submission is based on documents G/SCM/W/5351 of 12 April 2006 and
G/SCM/W/5372 of 23 June 2006 and is an attempt to reflect the outcome of the various
bilateral and plurilateral consultations conducted by the proponents of this submission as well
as the discussions in the informal and formal Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures which were held over the period of April 2006 to the present. The proponents are of
the view that the submission reflects a basis for a recommendation from the Committee for the
approval of the General Council.
2.
The submission amends document G/SCM/39 of 20 November 2001 by incorporating
new legal language which seeks to take into account the concerns of those delegations who
have expressed views during the informal and formal process and illustrates substantial
movement from the proposals contained in G/SCM/W/535/Add.1 and G/SCM/W/537. This
new language can be found in new paragraphs 1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h) and 1(i) and in footnotes 1,
2, 3 and 4. The original language of G/SCM/39 is retained in the text for ease of reference.
3.
The proponents of this submission have not changed any of the existing language in
G/SCM/39 but there is the recognition that additional technical work may need to be
undertaken to appropriately integrate and reconcile the new elements of G/SCM/39/Rev.1 with
the rest of the text.
(e)
Through the end of calendar year 2007, 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).
(f)
During the last year of the period referred to in 1(e), a Member that has received an
extension under these procedures shall have the possibility to seek a continuation of
the extension pursuant to SCM Article 27.4, for the programmes in question. The
Committee shall consider any such requests at that year's annual review, on the basis
of the provisions of SCM Article 27.4, i.e., outside the framework of these
procedures.
(g)
If a continuation of the extension pursuant to 1(f) is either not requested or not
granted, the Member in question shall have the final two years referred to in the last
sentence of SCM Article 27.4.
(e)
Through the end of calendar year 2013 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 Member receiving a continuation of the extension of these
procedures shall benefit from the final two years referred to in the last sentence of
65
Other non-SVE proponents of this document are Jordan, Panama and Uruguay.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 86
SCM Article 27.4 with the calendar years 2014 and 2015 constituting this two year
phase out period.66
(f)
The Committee notes that the Member receiving an extension under these procedures
shall take all necessary internal steps with a view to bringing the programmes into
conformity with Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement before the expiration of the
extension period.
(g)
During the period January 1 2008 through to December 31 2011 the Member
receiving the extension under these procedures shall undertake actions at the national
level in accordance with the commitment in 1(f). These actions may include
consultations with relevant government actors and organisations and any technical
and/or legal assessments which may need to be undertaken to assist the Member to
conform with 1(f) as well as a communication to existing or future beneficiaries
indicating the commitments undertaken in 1(e) and 1(f) of these procedures.
(h)
During the annual transparency and notification process in 2012, the Member
receiving an extension under these procedures shall participate in a mid-period
assessment held under the auspices of the Committee on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures.67 During this mid-period assessment the Member shall
provide information to the Committee on what steps it has taken to date and shall take
to conform to 1(f). During the mid-period assessment the Member receiving an
extension in 1(e) shall also provide an action plan for bringing its export subsidies
into conformity with Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement.68 This mid-period
assessment shall take into account the development, financial and trade needs of the
member as well as its capacity and administrative constraints.69
(i)
The Member receiving the extension under these procedures may request the WTO
Secretariat to provide technical assistance to assist that Member to bring its export
subsidies into conformity with Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement.
66
There shall be no further requests for a continuation of the extension beyond 2015 for the
programmes contained in Annex 1 of this current decision.
67
The mid-period review is a transparency exercise intended to enhance the annual transparency
process.
68
This action plan will be submitted for transparency purposes and may contain information as to
whether legislative changes, administrative amendments or any other procedures are required to bring the
programmes into conformity with Article 3.1 of the ASCM and whether any of these actions have been
undertaken.
69
This will be without prejudice to the commitments undertaken in 1(f) of these procedures.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 87
4.
Chairman's Proposal for the Text of a Draft Decision – JOB(07)/78 (6 June 2007)
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
Decision of xx 2007*
DRAFT
The General Council,
Having regard to Articles IV:1 and 2 and IX:1 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization ("WTO Agreement") and Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement");
Recalling that the Members of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
("SCM Committee" or "Committee"), as directed by the Ministerial Conference70 have granted,
pursuant to the procedures set forth in document G/SCM/39, extensions pursuant to
Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM
Agreement for the elimination of export subsidies, in respect of certain programmes of certain
developing country Members;
Noting the proposals submitted by those developing country Members to extend the
procedures contained in G/SCM/39;71
Recognizing the economic, financial and development needs, as well as the capacity and
administrative constraints, of those Members in implementing their commitments pursuant to
the SCM Agreement in respect of the elimination of export subsidies;
On the basis of the commitment of those Members to eliminate the export subsidies in
question not later than 31 December 2015, with no further requests for extension pursuant to
Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement beyond those foreseen pursuant to this Decision;
Emphasizing that as from the date of adoption of this Decision, the procedures referred to
herein shall represent the sole and unique basis for any extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of
the SCM Agreement;
Decides to adopt the following procedures.
*It is proposed that the text of the draft decision, once agreed by the SCM Committee, be subject to a
Committee decision forwarding it to the General Council with the recommendation that it be adopted.
PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE SCM AGREEMENT OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD
UNDER ARTICLE 27.2(b) OF THE SCM AGREEMENT FOR CERTAIN
DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS
The SCM Committee shall follow the procedures set forth below in respect of the
continuation of extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement ("SCM
70
71
WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 10.6.
See documents G/SCM/W/535 and G/SCM/W/537 and addenda.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 88
Article 27.4") of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement for certain
programmes, identified in the Annex.72
1.
Mechanism for continuation of extension
(a)
A Member that wishes to seek a continuation, for calendar year 2008, of the
extension under SCM Article 27.4 for a programme listed in the Annex, shall submit
a request to that effect to the SCM Committee not later than 3 September 2007. The
request also shall include a reference to the WTO document containing the
corresponding updating notification covering calendar year 2006, which the Member
shall have submitted to the SCM Committee pursuant to 1(d) of G/SCM/39.73
(b)
Not later than 26 October 2007, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to
continue the extensions, for calendar year 2008, for programmes listed in the Annex
in respect of which requests have been submitted pursuant to 1(a) and for which the
Committee has verified, in its annual review conducted pursuant to G/SCM/3974, that
the transparency and standstill requirements under G/SCM/39 were fulfilled during
2006.
(c)
As provided for in SCM Article 27.4, the continuation of extensions by the SCM
Committee pursuant to these procedures shall be subject to annual reviews in the form
of consultations between the Committee and the Members receiving continuations of
extensions. These annual reviews shall be conducted on the basis of annual updating
notifications from the Members in question, as referred to in 2(a). The purpose of the
annual reviews shall be to verify that the transparency and standstill requirements set
forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.
(d)
During the period 2008-2012, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to
continue the extensions pursuant to these procedures, subject to verification through
annual reviews as provided for in 1(c) that the transparency and standstill
requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled. The "last authorized period"
referred to in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall not extend beyond
31 December 2013, and the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last
sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall end not later than 31 December 2015.
(e)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures shall take,
from 1 January 2008, the necessary internal steps with a view to eliminating export
subsidies under the programme before the end of the final two-year phase-out period
provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4. These steps shall include
consultations with relevant government bodies and organisations and any necessary
technical and/or legal assessments, as well as a notification to each beneficiary under
the programme indicating that no export subsidies within the meaning of SCM
Article 3.1(a) will be granted or maintained beyond the end of calendar year 2015.
72
The programmes eligible for continuations of extensions under these procedures are programmes
providing export subsidies in the form of full or partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes for
which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under SCM Article 27.4 for calendar
year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.
73
At the regular meeting of the Committee in April 2007, these Members were reminded to submit
their updating notifications by 30 June 2007.
74
The procedures in G/SCM/39 shall cease to be effective upon completion of this 2007 annual review.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 89
(f)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures shall
provide, for transparency purposes, an action plan for eliminating export subsidies
under the programme, as an integral part of the annual updating notification submitted
for the annual review to be conducted in 2011.75 As part of this review, the SCM
Committee shall undertake a mid-period assessment of each programme for which it
has continued an extension under these procedures. During this mid-period
assessment, the SCM Committee shall take stock of the steps undertaken as of that
point by the notifying Member pursuant to 1(e), and shall discuss the action plan
provided by the Member.
(g)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures may
request the WTO Secretariat to provide technical assistance for eliminating export
subsidies under the programme.
2.
Transparency
(a)
The annual updating notifications shall follow the agreed format for subsidy
notifications under SCM Article 25 (found in G/SCM/6/Rev.1). Beginning with the
updating notifications covering calendar year 2008, notifying Members also shall
provide information regarding the actions they have taken pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).
(b)
During the annual reviews by the SCM Committee referred to in 1(c), notifying
Members can be requested by other Members to provide additional detail and
clarification with a view to maintaining transparency in respect of the scope, coverage
and intensity of benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes in question 69 and
the form of the subsidies provided thereunder; and in respect of the actions taken
pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f). Any information provided in response to such requests shall
be considered part of the notified information.
(c)
The provisions in 2(a) and 2(b) regarding the submission of updating notifications
and the conduct of annual reviews shall also apply to the final two-year phase
out-period provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4.
3.
Standstill
(a)
Through the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in SCM
Article 27.4, the programmes for which extensions are continued under these
procedures shall not be modified so as to make them more favourable than they were
as at 1 September 2001, as specified in the notified information previously submitted
pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39. The continuation of an expiring programme
without modification shall not be deemed to violate standstill.
(b)
The verification of standstill in respect of the scope, coverage and intensity of
benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes shall be based on the notified
information referred to in 1(c), 2(a), 2(b) and 3(a).
75
The action plan shall indicate how the Member intends to eliminate export subsidies under the
programme not later than the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last sentence of
SCM Article 27.4, including information as to legislative changes, administrative amendments and/or other
procedures as may be necessary, and whether any of these actions have been undertaken or are in the process of
being undertaken.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 90
4.
Product graduation on the basis of export competitiveness
Notwithstanding these procedures, Articles 27.5 and 27.6 shall apply in respect of
export subsidies for which extensions are continued pursuant to these procedures.
5.
[Members listed in Annex VII(b) which reserved rights pursuant to the
procedures in G/SCM/39]
To be further discussed in the light of the proposal from Honduras that was considered
in informal consultations on 4 June 2007.
6.
Final provision
These procedures shall cease to be in effect upon the completion of the annual review
covering calendar year 2015.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 91
5.
Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures - Decision of
the Committee of 13 July 2007– G/SCM/120 (17 July 2007)
At a special meeting held on 12-13 July 2007, the Committee on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures decided to forward the attached draft decision to the General Council, for
consideration for adoption by the Council at its meeting scheduled for 27 July 2007.
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
Draft Decision
The General Council,
Having regard to Articles IV:1 and 2 and IX:1 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization ("WTO Agreement") and Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement");
Recalling that the Members of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
("SCM Committee" or "Committee"), as directed by the Ministerial Conference76 have granted,
pursuant to the procedures set forth in document G/SCM/39, extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the
SCM Agreement of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement for the
elimination of export subsidies, in respect of certain programmes of certain developing country
Members;
Noting the proposals submitted by those developing country Members to extend the
procedures contained in G/SCM/39;77
Noting the terms of paragraph 5 of this Decision;
Recognizing the economic, financial and development needs, as well as the capacity and
administrative constraints, of those Members in implementing their commitments pursuant to the
SCM Agreement in respect of the elimination of export subsidies;
On the basis of the commitment of those Members to eliminate the export subsidies in
question not later than 31 December 2015, with no requests for extension beyond those foreseen
pursuant to this Decision;
Decides to adopt the following procedures.
PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS PURSUANT
TO ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE SCM AGREEMENT OF THE TRANSITION
PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 27.2(b) OF THE SCM AGREEMENT
FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS
The SCM Committee shall follow the procedures set forth below in respect of the
continuation of extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement ("SCM Article 27.4") of
76
Ministerial Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, (WT/MIN(01)/17),
paragraph 10.6.
77
See documents G/SCM/W/535 and G/SCM/W/537 and addenda.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 92
the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement for certain programmes, identified
in the Annex.78
1.
Mechanism for continuation of extension
(a)
A Member that wishes to seek a continuation, for calendar year 2008, of the
extension under SCM Article 27.4 for a programme listed in the Annex, shall submit
a request to that effect to the SCM Committee not later than 3 September 2007. The
request also shall include a reference to the WTO document containing the
corresponding updating notification covering calendar year 2006, which the Member
shall have submitted to the SCM Committee pursuant to 1(d) of G/SCM/39.79
(b)
Not later than 26 October 2007, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to
continue the extensions, for calendar year 2008, for programmes listed in the Annex
in respect of which requests have been submitted pursuant to 1(a) and for which the
Committee has verified, in its annual review conducted pursuant to G/SCM/3980, that
the transparency and standstill requirements under G/SCM/39 were fulfilled during
2006.
(c)
As provided for in SCM Article 27.4, the continuation of extensions by the
SCM Committee pursuant to these procedures shall be subject to annual reviews in
the form of consultations between the Committee and the Members receiving
continuations of extensions. These annual reviews shall be conducted on the basis of
annual updating notifications from the Members in question, as referred to in 2(a).
The purpose of the annual reviews shall be to verify that the transparency and
standstill requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.
(d)
During the period 2008-2012, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to
continue the extensions pursuant to these procedures, subject to verification through
annual reviews as provided for in 1(c) that the transparency and standstill
requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.81 The "last authorized period"
referred to in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall not extend beyond
31 December 2013, and the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last
sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall end not later than 31 December 2015.
(e)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures shall take,
from 1 January 2008, the necessary internal steps with a view to eliminating export
subsidies under the programme before the end of the final two-year phase-out period
provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4. These steps shall include
consultations with relevant government bodies and organisations and any necessary
technical and/or legal assessments. In addition, from 1 January 2008 and in no case
later than 31 December 2009, the Member shall notify each beneficiary under the
programme indicating that no export subsidies within the meaning of
78
The programmes eligible for continuations of extensions under these procedures are programmes
providing export subsidies in the form of full or partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes for
which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under SCM Article 27.4 for calendar
year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.
79
At the regular meeting of the Committee in April 2007, these Members were reminded to submit
their updating notifications by 30 June 2007.
80
The procedures in G/SCM/39 shall cease to be effective upon completion of this 2007 annual review.
81
This extension mechanism shall cease to be effective upon completion in 2012 of the annual review
by the Committee to continue the extensions for calendar year 2013, such that there will be no basis for requests
for extension beyond those foreseen in this Decision.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 93
SCM Article 3.1(a) will be granted or maintained beyond the end of calendar
year 2015.
2.
3.
(f)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures shall
provide, for transparency purposes, an action plan for eliminating export subsidies
under the programme, as an integral part of the annual updating notification
submitted for the annual review to be conducted in 2010.82 As part of this review, the
SCM Committee shall undertake a mid-period assessment of each programme for
which it has continued an extension under these procedures. During this mid-period
assessment, the SCM Committee shall take stock of the steps undertaken as of that
point by the notifying Member pursuant to 1(e), and shall discuss the action plan
provided by the Member.
(g)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures may
request the WTO Secretariat to provide technical assistance for eliminating export
subsidies under the programme.
Transparency
(h)
The annual updating notifications shall follow the agreed format for subsidy
notifications under SCM Article 25 (found in G/SCM/6/Rev.1). Beginning with the
updating notifications covering calendar year 2008, notifying Members also shall
provide information regarding the actions they have taken pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).
(i)
During the annual reviews by the SCM Committee referred to in 1(c), notifying
Members can be requested by other Members to provide additional detail and
clarification with a view to maintaining transparency in respect of the scope, coverage
and intensity of benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes in question83 and the
form of the subsidies provided thereunder; and in respect of the actions taken
pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f). Any information provided in response to such requests
shall be considered part of the notified information.
(j)
A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures shall
ensure transparency in respect of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in
the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 by submitting updating notifications under
paragraph 2(a), which shall be subject to annual review by the Committee.
Standstill
(c)
82
Through the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in
SCM Article 27.4, the programmes for which extensions are continued under these
procedures shall not be modified so as to make them more favourable than they were
as at 1 September 2001, as specified in the notified information previously submitted
pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39. The continuation of an expiring
programme without modification shall not be deemed to violate standstill.
The action plan shall indicate how the Member intends to eliminate export subsidies under the
programme not later than the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last sentence of
SCM Article 27.4, including information as to legislative changes, administrative amendments and/or other
procedures as may be necessary, and whether any of these actions have been undertaken or are in the process of
being undertaken, including how the individual beneficiaries have been notified pursuant to 1(e).
83
The scope, coverage and intensity of benefits of the programmes in question will be determined on
the basis of the legal instruments underlying the programmes.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 94
(d)
4.
The verification of standstill in respect of the scope, coverage and intensity of
benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes shall be based on the notified
information referred to in 1(c), 2(a), 2(b) and 3(a).
Product graduation on the basis of export competitiveness
Notwithstanding these procedures, Articles 27.5 and 27.6 shall apply in respect of export
subsidies for which extensions are continued pursuant to these procedures.
5.
Members listed in Annex VII(b) which reserved rights pursuant to the procedures in
G/SCM/39
(k)
This Decision does not prejudge rights of Annex VII Members.
(l)
If, during the period 2008-2015, the per capita GNP of a Member that reserved rights
under paragraph 6(b) of G/SCM/3984 reaches the level provided for in Annex VII(b)
of the SCM Agreement such that the Member is no longer included in Annex VII(b),
that Member shall be able to make use of these procedures as from the date at which
its per capita GNP reaches that level and for the remainder of that period. The
effective date for the standstill requirement referred to in 3(a) shall be the year in
which that Member's GNP per capita reaches the level provided for in Annex VII(b)
such that it is no longer included in Annex VII(b).
84
The Members that reserved rights, and the programmes in respect of which these rights were
reserved, are identified in documents G/SCM/N/74/BOL & Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/74/HND, G/SCM/N/74/KEN,
and G/SCM/N/74/LKA.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 95
ANNEX
LIST OF PROGRAMMES ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS
UNDER THE PROCEDURES85, AND DOCUMENT REFERENCES FOR THE
EXTENSION DECISIONS BY THE SCM COMMITTEE
COVERING CALENDAR YEAR 2007
Antigua & Barbuda
 Fiscal Incentive Act Cap 172 (December 1975) (G/SCM/50/Add.4)
 Free Trade and Processing Zone Act No. 12 of 1994 (G/SCM/51/Add.4)
Barbados
 Fiscal Incentive Programme (G/SCM/52/Add.4)
 Export Allowance (G/SCM/53/Add.4)
 Research & Development Allowance (G/SCM/54/Add.4)
 International Business Incentives (G/SCM/55/Add.4)
 Societies With Restricted Liability (G/SCM/56/Add.4)
Belize




Fiscal Incentives Act (G/SCM/57/Add.4)
Export Processing Zone Act (G/SCM/58/Add. 4)
Commercial Free Zone Act (G/SCM/59/Add.4)
Conditional Duty Exemptions Facility under Treaty of Chaguaramas (G/SCM/60/Add.4)
Costa Rica
 Free Zone Regime (G/SCM/61/Add.4)
 Inward Processing Regime (G/SCM/62/Add.4)
Dominica
 Fiscal Incentives Programme (G/SCM/63/Add.4)
85
Programmes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under
SCM Article 27.4 for calendar year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39. It is recalled that the
eligibility criteria in G/SCM/39 on the basis of which the original extension decisions pursuant to those
procedures (for calendar year 2003) were taken for the listed programmes were as follows (footnotes omitted):
"Programmes eligible for extension pursuant to these procedures, and for which Members shall
therefore grant extensions for calendar year 2003 [...], are export subsidy programmes (i) in the form of full or
partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes, (ii) which were in existence not later than 1 September
2001, and (iii) which are provided by developing country Members (iv) whose share of world merchandise
export trade was not greater than 0.10 per cent, (v) whose total Gross National Income ("GNI") for the year
2000 as published by the World Bank was at or below US$20 billion, (vi) and who are otherwise eligible to
request an extension pursuant to Article 27.4, and (vii) in respect of which these procedures are followed."
It is further recalled that, in respect of the above eligibility criteria, G/SCM/39 also provided that:
"The criteria set forth in these procedures are solely and strictly for the purpose of determining whether
Members are eligible to invoke these procedures. Members of the Committee agree that these criteria have no
precedential value or relevance, direct or indirect, for any other purpose."
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 96
Dominican Republic
 Law No. 8-90 to "Promote the Establishment of New Free Zones and Expand Existing Ones"
(G/SCM/64/Add.4)
El Salvador
 Export Processing Zones and Marketing Act, as amended (G/SCM/65/Add.4)
Fiji



Short-Term Export Profit Deduction (G/SCM/66/Add.4)
Export Processing Factories/Export Processing Zones Scheme (G/SCM/67/Add.4)
The Income Tax Act (Film Making and Audio Visual Incentive Amendment Decree 2000)
(G/SCM/68/Add.4)
Grenada
 Fiscal Incentives Act No. 41 of 1974 (G/SCM/69/Add.4)
 Statutory Rules and Orders No. 37 of 1999 (G/SCM/70/Add.4)
 Qualified Enterprises Act No. 18 of 1978 (G/SCM/71/Add.4)
Guatemala
 Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for Companies
under Special Customs Regimes (G/SCM/72/Add.4)
 Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production
Process Relating to Activities of Managers and Users of Free Zones (G/SCM/73/Add.4)
 Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production
Process of Commercial and Industrial Enterprises Operating in the Industrial and Free Trade
Zone (G/SCM/74/Add.4)
Jamaica
 Export Industry Encouragement Act (G/SCM/75/Add.4)
 Jamaica Export Free Zone Act (G/SCM/76/Add.4)
 Foreign Sales Corporation Act (G/SCM/77/Add.4)
 Industrial Incentives (Factory Construction) Act (G/SCM/78/Add.4)
Jordan
 Partial or Total Exemption from Income Tax of Profits Generated from Exports under Law
No. 57 of 1985, as amended (G/SCM/79/Add.4)
Mauritius
 Export Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/80/Add.4)
 Pioneer Status Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/81/Add.4)
 Export Promotion (G/SCM/82/Add.4)
 Freeport Scheme (G/SCM/83/Add.4)
Panama
 Official Industry Register (G/SCM/84/Add.4
 Export Processing Zones (G/SCM/85/Add.4)
Papua New Guinea
 Section 45 of the Income Tax (G/SCM/86/Add.4)
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 97
St. Kitts and Nevis
 Fiscal Incentives Act No. 17 of 1974 (G/SCM/90/Add.4)
St. Lucia
 Fiscal Incentives Act No. 15 of 1974 (G/SCM/87/Add.4)
 Free Zone Act, No. 10 of 1999 (G/SCM/88/Add.4)
 Micro and Small Scale Business Enterprises Act, No. 19 of 1998 (G/SCM/89/Add.4)
St. Vincent & Grenadines
 Fiscal Incentives Act No. 5 of 1982, as amended (G/SCM/91/Add.4)
Uruguay
 Automotive Industry Export Promotion Regime (G/SCM/92/Add.4)
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 98
XI.
AID FOR TRADE TASK FORCE
1.
Aid for Trade - WT/AFT/W/18 (15 June 2006)
Proponent: Barbados
III.
SCOPE FOR AFT
9.
In general, AFT should cover the following:

Trade Policy and Regulations, (i.e. regional and multilateral negotiations,
standards, implementation of trade agreements, trade policy and planning);

Trade-Related Infrastructure (i.e. transport and storage, communications, energy,
trade facilitation, etc);

Trade Development (i.e. trade promotion strategy and implementation, market
analysis and development);

Productive Supply-Side Constraints, (i.e. banking and financial services, research
and development and innovation; business and other services, agriculture,
forestry, fishing, industry and mining, tourism etc.); and

Trade Adjustment (abnormal adjustment resulting from severe adverse trade
shocks).
IV.
PRIORITY AREAS FOR INTERVENTION
A.
TRADE POLICY AND REGULATIONS
B.
TRADE ADJUSTMENT
C.
TRADE-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE
D.
TRADE DEVELOPMENT
E.
PRODUCTIVE SUPPLY-SIDE CONSTRAINTS
V.
A PRIVATE SECTOR AID FOR TRADE PROGRAMME
29.
A special effort should be made to ensure the involvement of the private sectors in
both developed and developing countries and to connect them to each other.
30.
The scope of a Private Sector Aid For Trade Programme should relate to activities
capable of supporting private sector efforts to export. The identification of gaps in current
Official Development Assistance in the trade-related field would be an appropriate starting
point.
31.
The delivery and monitoring of Private Sector AFT programmes should be vested in
an organization agreed between interested multilateral and bilateral donor agencies and sector
specific representative institutions on a country basis or, where appropriate, on a regional
basis.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 99
32.
AFT participants should aim for a feasible programme of assistance that is based on
professional diagnostic studies and needs assessments and on arrangements for a monitoring
system using mutually agreed benchmarks. Improving coherence and coordination of action
among multiple donors should also be part of this approach.
33.
An existing international trade-related organization that has a comparative advantage
in this field, and also enjoys the confidence of developing countries, should be given
responsibility for managing the programme. On the recipient side, the executing agency
could be the agreed representative institution such as regional development banks.
VI.
VOLUME AND NATURE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT
A.
MOBILIZING ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES
34.
According to the paragraph 57 mandate, additional funding is required. Between
1994-2004, development aid has been decreasing as debt relief became an increasing part of
ODA. It would be important therefore that current aid budgets are not depleted in order to
support AFT but rather additional resources would be tapped to add "new money" to ODA
budgets.
35.
The pledges so far for 2010 are promising but the challenge remains to realize
additionality. In this respect, it is essential that in finalizing commitments to the provision of
these resources that long-term sustainability of the AFT process and predictability in the
provision of funds are assured.
B.
NATURE OF AFT FINANCIAL SUPPORT
36.
In order to avoid an increase in the debt burden of developing countries, particularly
LDCs and small, vulnerable developing countries, aid-for-trade financial support should be
provided primarily in the form of grants. However, for certain high cost physical
infrastructure projects, these could be co-financed with long-term concessional loans from
other multilateral financial institutions (e.g., regional development banks and the World
Bank). Such loans should be on terms no less favourable than those of IDA or IFAD.
37.
Funding should also not involve any burdensome conditionalities. The latter should
be limited to monitoring and governance.
38.
With regard to the financial instruments, there is as much a need for budgetary
support that is available for sector-wide approaches on a multi-annual basis, as for specific
"project financing".
Budgetary support in situations of fiscal imbalance and
balance-of-payments deficit ensures macroeconomic stability through quicker disbursement
and a focus on the areas of adjustment most in need. It facilitates the development of projects
by ensuring the correct macroeconomic environment.
C.
DURATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF AFT FUNDING
39.
The problems related to supply-side capacity and trade-related infrastructure must be
tackled on a sustainable basis. This essentially implies that projects must be developed and
implemented over many years and be funded on a multi-year basis. AFT funds would
therefore have to be replenished periodically according to an agreed schedule, and procedures
would have to be established to ensure this.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 100
40.
Access to these funds would also have to be guaranteed and predictable, and to
achieve this purpose, some agreement between donors and recipients would be needed to
provide such security. In this context, some consideration could be given to strengthening the
role of multilateral sources in the provision of the additional resources.
VII.
MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE OF AFT
A.
MONITORING MECHANISM
41.
The role of the WTO in monitoring and evaluating performance of AFT programmes
should be paramount, and this responsibility could be assigned to its highest Council and its
subsidiary bodies (particularly the Committee on Trade and Development). The Joint
WTO/OECD Database on TRTA/CB already constitutes a useful monitoring tool which could
be further enhanced by improved supervision of the collection and processing of information.
In addition, a mechanism would be needed to assess the impact of AFT. Monitoring should
permit the involvement of recipients, donors and other interested parties.
B.
GOVERNANCE MECHANISM
42.
The wide range of bilateral, regional and multilateral mechanisms now in operation
would suggest that the AFT governance mechanism should first explore the comparative
advantage of existing institutions and seek to improve functioning where gaps exists.
43.
Several forms of assistance suffer from insufficient resources as well as a lack of
coordination between the institutions managing the projects. These weaknesses should be
avoided in AFT.
44.
There is need for credible mechanisms for delivering AFT and ways of improving
existing national and regional mechanisms must be found. Regional development banks
should play a key role in this area.
45.
Any governance structure should ensure WTO involvement as well as provide for
adequate coordination where gaps have been observed. The effective participation of WTO
Members or their representatives – which again could be the regional development banks
should be assured. It should also draw into the process international and regional financial
agencies, the private sector, bilateral donors along with experts, and other interested parties.
There should be an agreed administrative framework with agreed principles of management
and allocation of funds. Institutional conditionalities should be avoided.
C.
ELIGIBILITY
46.
In terms of country coverage, AFT should address the relevant needs of all WTO
developing-country Members with priority to LDCs, SVEs and acceding small developing
countries.
VIII.
PROCESSES TO IDENTIFY TRADE-RELATED NEEDS AT THE INDIVIDUAL
COUNTRY LEVEL
47.
In view of the wide variation in country situations, a country-specific approach to
needs assessment will be necessary in order to identify both the priority needs of individual
countries and the additional assistance required in each case. This effort should take into
account the needs of the private sector.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 101
48.
For countries that are part of a regional integration scheme and would wish their
national approaches to be complimented by a regional needs assessment approach, the latter
should also be undertaken.
49.
Aid for trade should allow policy flexibilities and national ownership as mandated in
the Paris Declaration of June 2005. Adopted at the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness
(March 2005) the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness has been prepared with broad
participation from development practitioners, through a process coordinated by the
High-Level Forum Steering Committee. The declaration outlines a set of joint commitments
and targets for governments and multilateral donors to reach over the next five years.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 102
XII.
COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED SESSION ON
SMALL ECONOMIES
1.
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade:
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15 (18 October 2005)
Designation of a Regional Body –
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3.
Proposals
4.
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.
2.
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Designation of
a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/16 (18 October 2005)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3.
Proposals
4.
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.
3.
Accession to the WTO - WT/COMTD/SE/W/17 (18 October 2005)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3.
Specific Proposals
3.
It should 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 will only be required to undertake commitments
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 103
commensurate with their level of development. In determining the terms of reference
for accession Working Parties, appropriate consideration should be given to the
specific characteristics and vulnerabilities of acceding small, vulnerable economies.
4.
It should also be agreed that if a party to the negotiations on the accession of
any applicant country considers that the terms of reference of the relevant Working
Party are not being observed, it may request the establishment of a panel. This panel
would be appointed by the Director-General from a roster of independent experts, to
examine the case and report with recommendations to the General Council/Ministerial
Conference.
4.
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement: Designation of a Regional Body
– WT/COMTD/SE/W/18 (18 October 2005)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3.
Proposals
4.
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 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.
5.
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade:
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.1 (10 April 2006)
Designation of a Regional Body –
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3.
Proposals
4.
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 technical and financial assistance at
mutually agreed terms to support small, vulnerable economies in fulfilling their rights
and obligations under this agreement.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 104
6.
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Designation of
a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.1 (10 April 2006)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3.
Proposals
4.
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 technical and financial assistance at mutually
agreed terms to support small, vulnerable economies in fulfilling their rights and
obligations under this agreement.
7.
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement:
Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.1 (10 April 2006)
Designation of a Regional
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3.
Proposals
4.
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 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 technical and financial assistance at
mutually agreed terms to support small, vulnerable economies in fulfilling their rights
and obligations under this agreement.
8.
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade:
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.2 (18 July 2006)
Designation of a Regional Body –
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3.
Proposals
4.
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 that there
shall be explicit recognition of Members' rights to designate a regional body to
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 105
provide technical support86 as is necessary to assist them in implementing the
provisions of the TBT Agreement.
5.
Members and the WTO, within its competence, when providing technical and
financial assistance to support small, vulnerable economies in fulfilling their rights
and obligations under this Agreement, shall consider the advantages of providing that
assistance to the regional body, where such exists.
4.
Issues for Consideration
6.
The co-sponsors of this proposal are of the view that this explicit recognition
of regional bodies would lead to greater legal certainty. In addition, it would lead to
an improvement in levels of transparency and predictability thereby enhancing the
ability of SVEs to fulfil their legal and notification obligations arising out of the TBT
Agreement.
7.
It should be further noted that this proposal does not seek to change the legal
architecture of the TBT Agreement nor would it impact on the balance of rights and
obligations of any WTO Member. In addition, the individual Members benefiting
from this proposal will continue to be legally responsible and accountable for their
individual obligations which include notifications.
9.
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: Designation of
a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.2 (18 July 2006)
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3.
Proposals
4.
Recognising the special difficulties encountered by the co-sponsors of this
proposal in complying with obligations under the SPS Agreement, the resulting
difficulties in accessing markets and the complexity of the formulation and
application of SPS measures for their domestic markets, the General Council is to
recommend that there shall be explicit recognition that WTO Members may designate
a regional body to provide technical support87 as is required to carry out the functions
necessary to assist them in implementing the provisions of the SPS Agreement.
5.
Members and the WTO, within its competence, when providing technical and
financial assistance to support small, vulnerable economies in fulfilling their rights
and obligations under this Agreement, shall consider the advantages of providing that
assistance to the regional body, where such exists.
86
Such technical support could include the development of TBT measures; assistance in the
preparation of TBT notifications; assistance with the response to any queries received on the notifications; and
any analysis or research that would enhance the understanding of the TBT obligations.
87
Such technical support could include the development of SPS measures; assistance in the
preparation of SPS notifications; assistance with the response to any queries received on the notifications;
assistance in establishing and maintaining risk assessment systems and control, inspection and approval
procedures and any analysis or research that would enhance the understanding of the SPS obligations.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 106
4.
Issues for Consideration
6.
The co-sponsors of this proposal are of the view that this explicit recognition
of regional bodies would lead to greater legal certainty. In addition, it would lead to
an improvement in levels of transparency and predictability thereby enhancing the
ability of SVEs to fulfil their legal and notification obligations to the WTO under the
SPS Agreement.
7.
It should be further noted that the proposal does not seek to change the legal
architecture of the SPS Agreement nor would it impact on the balance of rights and
obligations of any WTO Member. In addition, the individual Members benefiting
from this proposal will continue to be legally responsible and accountable for their
individual obligations which include notifications.
10.
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement:
Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.2 (18 July 2006)
Designation of a Regional
Proponents: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
3.
Proposals
4.
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 that there
shall be explicit recognition of Members' rights to designate a regional body to
provide such technical support88 as is necessary to assist them in implementing the
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.
5.
Members and the WTO, within its competence, when providing technical and
financial assistance to support small, vulnerable economies in fulfilling their rights
and obligations under this Agreement, shall consider the advantages of providing that
assistance to the regional body, where such exists.
4.
Issues for Consideration
6.
The co-sponsors of this proposal are of the view that this explicit recognition
of regional bodies would lead to greater legal certainty. In addition, it would lead to
an improvement in levels of transparency and predictability thereby enhancing the
ability of SVEs to fulfil their legal and notification obligations under the TRIPS
Agreement.
7.
It should be further noted that the proposal does not seek to change the legal
architecture of the TRIPS Agreement nor would it impact on the balance of rights and
obligations of any WTO Member. In addition, the individual Members benefiting
from this proposal will continue to be legally responsible and accountable for their
individual obligations which include notifications.
88
Such technical support could include the development of TRIPS measures; assistance in the
preparation of TRIPS notifications; assistance with the response to any queries received on the notifications;
and any analysis or research that would enhance the understanding of the TRIPS obligations.
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 107
11.
Draft Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small Economies in Meeting
their Obligations under the Agreements on SPS Measures, TBT and TRIPS
(27 September 2006)
1.
In paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration,89 Ministers established a work
programme under the auspices of the General Council to examine issues relating to the trade of
small economies with the objective of framing responses to the trade-related issues identified
for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system,
without creating a sub-category of WTO Members.
2.
On 1 March 2002, the General Council took note of a framework and procedures for
the conduct of the Work Programme on Small Economies90 and instructed the Committee on
Trade and Development (CTD) to conduct this programme of work in Dedicated Sessions and
to report regularly on the progress of its work to the General Council. This mandate was
reaffirmed by the 1 August 2004 Decision of the General Council.91 At the Hong Kong
Ministerial Conference, Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to this Work Programme and
urged Members to adopt specific measures that would facilitate the fuller integration of small
economies into the multilateral trading system.92
3.
In discussions in the CTD in Dedicated Session, the proponents of small economies
identified, as one of the trade-related issues affecting the fuller integration of their economies
into the multilateral trading system, their limited administrative capacities to implement
complex rules and procedures and, in particular, to fulfil their obligations under the Agreements
on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
4.
In
documents
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15,
WT/COMTD/SE/W/16
and
WT/COMTD/SE/W/18, the proponents suggested that they be allowed to designate regional
bodies to assist them in the implementation of their obligations in the SPS, TBT and TRIPS
Agreements and sought explicit approval from Members to do so. The proposals underwent
two revisions93 to take into account the concerns raised by other Members in the Dedicated
Session and at informal and/or formal meetings of the SPS and TBT Committees and the
TRIPS Council.
5.
Reports from the Chairpersons of these bodies were sent to the Chairperson of the
CTD in Dedicated Session. The proponents of small economies also clarified that it was not
their intention to modify, amend or alter the balance of rights and obligations contained in the
SPS, TBT or TRIPS Agreements and that they, as Members, remain ultimately responsible for
adhering to the obligations they contain.
6.
On the basis of the discussions that have been held on this matter, the CTD in
Dedicated Session considers that the use by small, vulnerable economies of regional bodies to
provide technical support and assistance as necessary could help them implement their
obligations in the areas of SPS, TBT and TRIPS, and thereby facilitate their fuller integration
into the multilateral trading system. Accordingly, and in pursuance of the provisions of
paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, the CTD in Dedicated Session
89
WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1.
WT/L/447.
91
WT/L/579.
92
WT/MIN(05)/DEC, paragraph 41.
93
The
latest
versions
have
been
circulated
WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.2 and WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.2.
90
as
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.2;
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 108
recommends that the General Council agrees that small economies are allowed to use such
regional bodies to assist them in the implementation of their obligations under the SPS, TBT
and TRIPS Agreements. It also recommends that Members and the WTO, within its
competence, when providing technical and financial assistance to support small, vulnerable
economies in fulfilling their rights and obligations under the agreements concerned, shall
consider the advantages of providing that assistance to the regional body where such exists. It
is understood that individual Members benefiting from these recommendations will continue to
be legally responsible and accountable for their individual notifications and other obligations
under these Agreements. This recommendation is without prejudice both to the identification
of other specific measures in due course to facilitate the fuller integration of small economies
into the multilateral trading system and to measures taken by other Members with regard to this
issue.
12.
Draft Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small Economies in Meeting
their Obligations under the Agreements on SPS Measures, TBT and TRIPS
(28 September 2006)
1.
In paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration,94 Ministers established a work
programme under the auspices of the General Council to examine issues relating to the trade of
small economies with the objective of framing responses to the trade-related issues identified
for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system,
without creating a sub-category of WTO Members.
2.
On 1 March 2002, the General Council took note of a framework and procedures for
the conduct of the Work Programme on Small Economies95 and instructed the Committee on
Trade and Development (CTD) to conduct this programme of work in Dedicated Sessions and
to report regularly on the progress of its work to the General Council. This mandate was
reaffirmed by the 1 August 2004 Decision of the General Council.96 At the Hong Kong
Ministerial Conference, Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to this Work Programme and
urged Members to adopt specific measures that would facilitate the fuller integration of small
economies into the multilateral trading system.97
3.
In discussions in the CTD in Dedicated Session, the proponents of small economies
identified, as one of the trade-related issues affecting the fuller integration of their economies
into the multilateral trading system, their limited administrative capacities to implement
complex rules and procedures and, in particular, to fulfil their obligations under the Agreements
on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
4.
In
documents
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15,
WT/COMTD/SE/W/16
and
WT/COMTD/SE/W/18, the proponents suggested that they be allowed to designate regional
bodies to assist them in the implementation of their obligations in the SPS, TBT and TRIPS
Agreements and sought explicit approval from Members to do so. The proposals underwent
two revisions98 to take into account the concerns raised by other Members in the Dedicated
Session and at informal and/or formal meetings of the SPS and TBT Committees and the
TRIPS Council.
94
WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1.
WT/L/447.
96
WT/L/579.
97
WT/MIN(05)/DEC, paragraph 41.
98
The
latest
versions
have
been
circulated
WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.2 and WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.2.
95
as
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.2;
WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.3
Page 109
5.
Reports from the Chairpersons of these bodies were sent to the Chairperson of the
CTD in Dedicated Session. The proponents of small economies also clarified that it was not
their intention to modify, amend or alter the balance of rights and obligations contained in the
SPS, TBT or TRIPS Agreements and that they, as Members, remain ultimately responsible for
adhering to the obligations they contain.
6.
On the basis of the discussions that have been held on this matter, the CTD in
Dedicated Session considers that the use by small, vulnerable economies of regional bodies to
provide technical support and assistance as necessary could help them implement their
obligations in the areas of SPS, TBT and TRIPS, and thereby facilitate their fuller integration
into the multilateral trading system. Accordingly, and in pursuance of the provisions of
paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, the CTD in Dedicated Session
recommends that the General Council agrees that small economies are allowed to use such
regional bodies to assist them in the implementation of their obligations under the SPS, TBT
and TRIPS Agreements. It also recommends that Members and the WTO, within its
competence, when providing technical and financial assistance to support small, vulnerable
economies in fulfilling their rights and obligations under the agreements concerned, shall
consider the advantages of providing that assistance to the regional body where such exists. It
is understood that individual Members benefiting from these recommendations will continue to
be legally responsible and accountable for their individual notifications and other obligations
under these Agreements. This recommendation is without prejudice both to the identification
of other specific measures in due course to facilitate the fuller integration of small economies
into the multilateral trading system and to the use of regional bodies as described in this report
by other developing country Members.
__________