RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/COMTD/M/31
14 December 2000
(00-5419)
Committee on Trade and Development
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 27 OCTOBER AND 8 NOVEMBER 2000
Chairman: H. E. Mr. Ransford Smith (Jamaica)
A. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA
1. The draft agenda for the meeting, contained in airgram WTO/AIR/1407/Rev.1 of
20 October 2000, was adopted without modification.
B. REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OF AD HOC OBSERVERS
1. Request for attendance for ad hoc observers
2. The Chairman recalled that at previous sessions of the Committee on Trade and
Development (CTD) it had been agreed to invite the following intergovernmental organizations on an
ad hoc, meeting-by-meeting basis: the Arab Ma ghreb Union (AMU);  the Economic Community of
West African States (ECOWAS);  the Economic C ooperation Organisation (ECO);  the Inter-Arab
Investment Guarantee Corporation;  the Islamic Development Bank (IDB);  the Organisation ofAfrican Unity (OAU);  Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC);  the South Centre;  the South
Pacific Forum;  the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); the West African Economic
and Monetary Union (WAEMU);  and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).  He
proposed that  these organisations be invited to the next formal meeting of the CTD.
3. It was so agreed.
2. Further Consideration of requests for observer status by the League of Arab States, the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and the Gulf Organizationfor Industrial Consulting
4. The Chairman recalled that there were three outstanding requests for observer status to the
CTD from the League of Arab States, from OPEC and from the Gulf Organization for Industrial
Consulting.  He recalled that at this stage, pendi ng the outcome of the General Council process, these
requests would of course be on an ad hoc basis.
5. The representative of Israel said that the question of Observership had systemic implications,
and was being considered in the General Council.  His delegation therefore suggested that a decision
on the issue be postponed.
6. The representative of the United States said that her delegation supported the granting of ad
hoc Observer Status for the 32nd Session of the CTD to the Gulf Organisation for Industrial
Consulting.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 2
7. The representative of Egypt said that his delegation supported the granting of ad hoc Observer
Status for the 32nd Session of the CTD to all three organisations, taken together.
8. The representative of Venezuela recalled that at the 30th Session of the CTD, his delegation
had supported the request made by the OPEC, and said he wished to reiterate that support.  He sought
clarification as to whether the OPEC had responded to requests by some Members for informationconcerning its characteristics as an organisation and the relationship of its work to that of the CTD,
and whether these requests had been circulated to Members.
9. The representative of Bangladesh said his delegation urged Members to grant ad hoc
Observer Status to all three requesting organisations.
10. The representative of Indonesia reiterated the support of his delegation  for the request made
by OPEC, and added that his delegation had no objection to the other two requests.
11. The Chairman said that there had been no objection to the granting of ad hoc Observer Status
on a meeting by meeting basis to the Gulf Organisation for Industrial Consulting, and asked if
Members were in a position to accept this request.
12. The representative of Egypt said that his delegations supported the requests of all three
organisations, but reiterated that ad hoc Observer Status on a meeting by meeting basis needed to be
granted to all three organisations, and that no differentiation was to be made between the differentrequests.
13. The Chairman said that there was a position that all three requests be treated together.  In
these circumstance, it seemed that the CTD was not yet in a position to grant ad hoc Observer Status
to any of the three requesting organisations, and that further time was required for consideration of
these requests, a position which was indeed the same as that at the end of the 30th Session.  The
Chairman therefore proposed that the agenda item be differed for further consideration.
14. It was so agreed.
15. The Director of the Development Division, responding to the question by the representative
of Venezuela, clarified that no information had been received from the OPEC.
C. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE
1. Central African Economic and Monetary Community
16. The Chairman drew the attention of the CTD to the notification (WT/COMTD/N/13) by the
parties of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community and the copy of the corresponding
treaty (WT/COMTD/24).  He said he had been informed that the representatives of the Community
were not yet in a position to make their presentation , and therefore proposed that this item be put on
the agenda for the first meeting in 2001.
17. It was so agreed.
2. East African Community
18. The Chairman drew the attention of the CTD to the notification (WT/COMTD/N/14) by the
parties of the East African Community and a copy of the corresponding treaty (WT/COMTD/25).WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 3
19. The representative of Tanzania, speaking on behalf also of Kenya and Uganda, introduced the
notification by the parties of the East African Community, and presented the various provisions of the
Treaty.
20. The representative of the United States  commended the notification by the parties, and said
that the United States welcomed regional integrati on in Africa, and any efforts to lower tariff and
non-tariff barriers generally.  Her delegation looked forward to any further notification that would
provide additional details as they became available.
21. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the notification and presentation,
and said that the EC had always underlined its support for regional initiatives to create WTO
compatible regional trade arrangements, recalling that it was also part of the EC's strategy – as part of
the new EC-ACP partnership – to create such organisations,  to help countries to establish regional
markets, and to help them take advantage of the proximity of their markets to enhance trade.  He saidhis delegation would be most interested to receive further information, once it had become available,
on how the establishment of the customs union – pursuant to Article 75 of the Agreement – had
progressed.  He said the experience of implementing these provisions would be useful information to
share in the CTD, and that it would be useful to discuss the implementation of these provisions in the
CTD.
22. The representative of Mauritius welcomed the re-establishment of the East African
Community, and said that this was a first step towards the further integration of COMESA.  Mauritius
looked forward to working with the count ries individually and as a community.
23. The observer from the Organisation of African Unity welcomed the presentation made, and
the efforts made to revive the East African Community.  He said that the East African Community
Treaty was part of a wider movement in the African region towards a continental economic
community, as provided for by the Abuja Treaty for the establishment of an African Economic
Community over the next three decades, and that this was reflected in Article 120, paragraph 2 of the
East African Community Treaty.  He said that the OAU was continuing its discussions with the WTO
Secretariat regarding the notification of the Abuja Treaty.
D. REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON SEMINAR ON SMALL ECONOMIES
24. The Chairman recalled that on Saturday 21 October, a Seminar on Small Economies had been
organized under the auspices of the CTD.  A report on the seminar prepared under the Chairman's
own authority had been circulated to Members (see  Annex).  The Chairman said that there had been
some very interesting presentations by experts from other international organizations and by
academics.  The CTD was also privileged to hear from a number of the representatives of smalleconomies who were here for Geneva Week, as well as representatives from the Geneva community
of Members.  The seminar cast light on the problems of small economies, looking at their
development indicators, including the issue of measuring vulnerability.  It looked at the constraints on
the small economies in trying to develop and diversify their trade, and in trying to negotiate on a
number of fronts simultaneously.  It also posed questions as to how the small economies could copebetter, including through regional cooperation.  Finally, it examined how the WTO and other
institutions might respond.  The seminar showed that there were some very real problems facing the
small economies.  Some of the solutions were in their own hands, but it was also the view that the
international community could contribute to the solu tion of their problems.  There was also a specific
proposal for further work on the issue in the WTO.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 4
25. The Chairman proceeded to read out his report, so that non-anglophone Members would have
the benefit of an oral translation, given that ther e had not been sufficient time to prepare a written
translation.
26. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago said the seminar had been timely and extremely
informative, and underlined the high quality of the presentation and discussions.  The documentation
provided was also useful, and was a source for reference for the future.  She said that the seminar
clearly demonstrated that while small economies shared some problems with other developing
economies, they also faced peculiar problems which arose from the very fact of being small
economies.  She said that the solution called for some measure of differential treatment, possibly on
an issue-by-issue basis, for resolving the problems of small economies and to ensure that they had a
greater level of participation in the world trading system.  She said that some of the other points raised
included: cooperation at a regional level, which was something that Caribbean countries had beenpursuing assiduously, the need for a higher degree of technical assistance from the WTO Secretariat,
and other types of assistance which went beyond the scope of the WTO.
27. The representative of Barbados said that the seminar had covered a range of issues of
importance to small economies.  Her delegation found that the range of issues, which included
characteristics, constraints, vulnerabilities, and policy approaches – domestic and international - madefor a discussion that led to a deeper and further understanding of issues related to small economies.
She said that many participants had stated that in the trade-related field, there were several measures
and mechanisms that could address the problems, constraints and needs of small economies.   Her
delegation held the view that the case had been amply made for the launching of a work programme
on small economies.  Such a programme could serve an exploratory function which could allow allMembers to examine issues closely, as well as an opportunity to formulate prescriptions as to the way
forward, in order to address the needs and constr aints of small economies.  Her delegations joined
other in calling upon the Secretariat to set in place a work progamme on small economies.  She said
that she acknowledged that the report was on the Chai rman's own responsibility, but was struck by the
reference to the need to resolve civil conflicts.  He r delegation held the view that the focus of work in
the WTO should remain on trade issues.  Finally, regarding the fora in which work on small
economies could be taken up, she said that while the UNCTAD played a very important
complementary role to the WTO, there was a need for substantive work on multilateral rules to be
undertaken in the WTO, adding that the WTO would be one of the last organisations to address the
issue of small economies.
28. The representative of Bolivia expressed the concern of his delegation regarding the format
and the proceedings of the seminar on small economies.  He said that the objective had been to
discuss the interests of Members who had small economies, and to seek solutions to problems faced
by these countries, within the multilateral trading system.  He said that there had been confusion
arising from the fact that the theme of small economies had been presented as a question of small
states.  He also drew attention to the fact that the date of the seminar had been changed, and that it had
been held on a Saturday.  His delegation was of the view that the seminar had not reached its desiredobjectives, had generated confusion and had frustrated the expectations of Members interested in the
question.  His delegation hoped that future activities on the question of small economies would be
organised in consultation with small economies, and was ready to support any initiative in favour of
small economies.
29. The representative of Guatemala said that the theme of small economies was an important
one, adding that the WTO was lagging in its work on the question when compared to other
international organisations and regional fora.  His delegation was of the view that the seminar would
be helpful in bringing solutions to a number of difficulties which confronted small economies.  His
delegation was concerned about two matters:  first, the change of date to a Saturday.  His delegation
had believed that the practice of holding seminars on weekdays would have been continued, and theWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 5
change of date to a Saturday had a significant impact, given that this deterred a number of delegations
from taking part, which was reflected in the attendance.  Secondly, his delegation was of the view that
the seminar had generated some confusion, rather than clarity, regarding the concept of small
economies, given that a substantial part of the discussion had revolved around the definition of small
states.  While small states and small economies shared many characteristics, the two concepts weredistinct.  His delegation supported future work on small economies in the WTO, including through the
elaboration of a work programme.  His delega tion supported the views expressed by Barbados
regarding the inclusion of UNCTAD in work on small economies.  He was of the opinion that, while
the UNCTAD had indeed carried out much work on small economies, it was necessary to keep the
work of both organisations distinct.
30. The representative of the United States said her delegation benefitted from the seminar on
small economies, and was impressed by the range of views expressed.  She said that while there might
have been a low turn out from developed countries, there were a very large number of developing
countries present, especially in view of the presence of non-resident WTO members.  She said that her
delegation noted that there had been a lack of clarity on what constituted a small economy: there had
been a number of references to small and vulnerable economies; to small, vulnerable and volatile
economies; and to small, vulnerable and isolated  economies.  From the point of view of their
advocates, each of these concepts presented serious issues for consideration, as these concepts
expressed the particular nature of their economies' problems.  While the United States had serious
concerns about the lack of definitional clarity, there were a number of presentations made which
suggested that countries considering themselves to be small economies could organise themselves in a
way to identify and target arguments or views under the rubric of special and differential treatment inthe context of existing WTO agreements.  If this were to happen, it would better enable developed
countries to target their special and differential treatment responses.  She said that the United States
could not, however, support a category in the WTO, es pecially in the light of the confusion expressed
by some Members considering themselves to be small economies.  She said that the WTO already
recognised the needs of least-developed countries – most of which were in Africa – and the needs ofdeveloping countries.  She recalled the point made by some participants at the seminar that the
least-developed countries belonged to a defined category while developing countries considered
themselves to be developing countries on the basis of self-definition, and said that while some
developing countries were self-selecting, it did not follow that developed countries viewed such
countries as developing countries in the context of WTO rules and benefits.  The United States could
not, at this time, endorse a Work Programme on small economies, but welcomed the interventions of
countries considering themselves to be small economies, in order to allow Members to understandmore clearly what was being targeted in the WTO.  Her delegation reiterated that much of the
discussion in the seminar was very substantive, and clearly noted the direction of countries to
articulate and concretise particular problems so that they might be understood in the context of the
special and differential treatment exercise and the work of the CTD.  Referring to the Chairman's
statement, she said that one thing that appeared to be missing were statements made by participants to
the effect that trade was not the cause of vulnerability, but rather that financial flows were more of a
problem.  The inclusion of such a statement would have presented a more balanced picture.  She
referred to the sentence in the report which began "while openness to trade may exacerbate
vulnerability…", which as it stood gave the impression that there was no comment made that trade did
not cause vulnerability.  She said that in making this point, her delegation still recognised that thereclearly were issues of vulnerability and serious problems to be dealt with in trade matters.
31. The Chairman, responding to the comments made by the United States, recalled that the
speaker from the World Bank had indicated that the study he refered to was still in process, and hence
that the statement on trade not being a cause of vulnerability lacked an element of definiteness.
32. The representative of Mauritius said that the seminar had the merit of being successful, and
had the enhanced benefit of participation from developed countries and international organisations.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 6
His delegation was of the view that the Chairman's report considered a number of useful topics for
reflection.  He said that by highlighting matters of priority, the report set the parameters for future
work.  Responding to the comments made by the United States, he said that he shared the view that
trade was not a cause of vulnerability, and added that the true concern remained the impact of
vulnerability on participation in international trade.  He said this concern should be taken into account
in any future work.  He highlighted the importance of macroeconomic management.  He also
requested that future work should take into account questions such as:  How was it possible to take
advantage of technological developments?  How was it possible to take care of those determinants
that were not so fundamental to competitiveness?  How was it possible to harness electronic
commerce, financial services, and tourism for the benefits of small economies?  How could
international endeavours could bring comfort in further helping small economies?  How could small
economies pool together their resources and take advantage of cooperation?  He said that the reporthad given the right tone, and that there were indeed parameters for a broad agenda.  He said that the
approach taken should be a holistic one, tying in trade with other dimensions.  How, for example,
could technical assistance and capacity building programmes be articulated and implemented to meet
the needs of small economies?  He concluded by saying that his delegation's approach was on an
issue-by-issue basis.
33. The representative of the European Communities said that the holding of the seminar showed
that the WTO was responsive to the concerns of its Members.  His delegation was pleased that
regional cooperation was a major topic that had come through in the seminar.  Regional trade
agreements and the pooling of resources in the regions could be a major help, and that there was value
in cooperation with larger trading partners.  Second, his delegation recognised that there was aproblem in participating in Geneva-based work, and added that this was a generic problem that went
beyond the question of small economies.  Third, regarding the specific contribution the WTO could
make to the discussion on small economies, his delegation noted the mention made in the Chairman's
report of stable and predictable market access and of an issue-by-issue approach to specific problems
and constraints.  There was a problem if there was no definition of small economies, since if marketaccess was to be granted,  it was necessary to know to whom.  Similarly, in order to pursue an issue
by issue approach, some ground-work needed to be done in order to define which countries
concerned.  Self-selection was not the answer, given that both rules and benefits derived from them
were under consideration, and it was necessary that the benefits be fully understood by those who
provided them and took advantage of them.
34. The representative of Canada said that the discussion was informative, and the Chairman's
report raised issues for further analysis and inform ation sharing.  She said that the holding of the
seminar on the Saturday was unfortunate as participation in the discussion was not as full as it could
have been.
35. The representative of Chile said that his delegation shared the view of the representative of
Bolivia who had alluded to the confusion which had been created during the seminar as the discussion
switched between the question of small economies and small states.  He said that at various points inthe discussion, Chile could consider itself as falling within the small economies group, and at other
times outside.  He said that his delegation had a fundamental concern about the emergence of new
groups the composition of which was not clearly established.  He said that his delegation favoured an
approach which identified problems common to developing countries, and which examined common
solutions.
36. The representative of Egypt said his delegation shared many of the points in the Chairman's
report concerning the need for adequate technical assistance, the need for adequate technical
assistance, the importance of regional integration and cooperation, and the need to take advantage of
technology developments.  He said that formulating and agreeing to definitions was of value, and this
was reinforced by the statements made by Bolivia a nd Guatemala.  He said that some of the elementsWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 7
reflected in the Chairman's summary required the construction of a definition.  He said that many of
the sources of vulnerability were shared by the wider group of developing countries, and sometimes
even beyond that.
37. The representative of Burkina Faso, referring to the comments made by Barbados said that
while the role of the WTO was not to resolve civil strife, that particular problem should be mentioned
in the report by the Chairman.
38. The representative of Saint Lucia said that the seminar had been well attended, despite it
being held on a Saturday.  He said the Chairman's report was useful, though there were some areas
that could be augmented.  He recalled, and agreed with, a statement that had been made that the
understanding of problems and difficulties constrai ning development was an evolving science.  He
said that in the 1950's, all countries had been treated similarly.  Subsequently, there had arisen an
appreciation that there was a distinction to be made between developed and developing countries.
Still more recently, a differentiation had been made between developing countries and least-developed
countries.  There was still a need to examine whether there were any further disadvantages faced by
countries.  What had come out of the seminar was that there was clearly a perception that countries
which had been identified because of their peculiar and unique disadvantages had not been able to
benefit from globalisation and new market opportunities.  He said that the issue was not one ofdefining a special category for these countries.  Rather, what needed to be done, since there was a
recognition that there could be particular problems facing those countries, was to address the issues
that arose.  If  there could be any practical ou tcome from the Seminar, it would be the undertaking of
a rigorous and authoritative analysis of problems facing these countries.  While it was true that
UNCTAD was carrying out work in this area, it was also necessary for the WTO to decide as towhether it was going to simply tag on to the UNCTAD's work, or undertake it own work.  His
delegation was of the view that it was more appropriate, given the very specific mandate of the WTO,
that such work be undertaken by the WTO.
39. The representative of Cuba said the seminar had been a contribution to the understanding of
the problems faced by small economies.  He said that the participation of non-residents had been a
positive feature.  His delegation supported the proposal by the delegation of Barbados concerning the
elaboration of a work programme on small economies.  He said that as far as his delegation was
concerned, there was no confusion, as it was clear that there were small economies in the WTO, and
that there was a need for special and differential treatment in favour of these economies in order to
strengthen their participation in international trade.   He said it was not possible to have the same type
of rules for all economies, and added that the list of factors cited by the Chairman in his report
contributed to the identification of small economies.  He said that in addition to these factors, it wasnecessary to take into account the fact that a number of economies were subjected to blockades or
embargoes, which were unjustified and which caused a degree of vulnerability which beyond those
faced by other economies.  He said that Cuba was an example of a country which suffered from such
vulnerability.  He said in addition that the majority of various proposals made on implementation
would lead to a better integration of small economies into the world trading system, and hence thatswift decisions needed to be taken with respect to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the draft Seattle Ministerial
text.
40. The representative of the United States said that she recognised that the Chairman' report did
reflect the fact that trade was beneficial to small economies.  She said that the discussion held in the
CTD at its 31st Session further demonstrated that the question what constituted a small economy was
highly complicated.
41. The representative of Jamaica supported the call for a work programme on small economies.
She said that during the course of the debate a number of delegations had pointed to the need for
clarity on a number of aspects relating to small economies, and this was one justification for furtherWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 8
work on the issue.  Her delegation joined that of Mauritius in stating that there were factors other than
trade which contributed to vulnerability, but that the trade dimension aggravated the problems faced
by small economies.
42. The Chairman said he would take into account views expressed, though he stressed that the
report was presented under his own authority.  He emphasised that the basis on which the seminars
were held was that there would be no formal report, but rather a report by the chairman.  He said that
a specific proposal had been made on the establishment of a work programme.  He said that while
there was as yet no agreement on the establishment of a work programme, there was however,
widespread agreement that work should continue, a nd the precise nature of such work would need to
be the subject of consultations.  He proposed that such consultations be carried out, and that the CTD
revert to the matter at a subsequent meeting.
43. The representative of Barbados endorsed the holding of further consultations, and requested
that the Chairman carry out consultations with Members on the establishment of a work programme.
44. It was so agreed.
E. ELECTRONIC COMMERCE: REPORT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL
45. The Chairman recalled that, following a period of uncertainty, the General Council had
agreed on 17 July 2000 to reinvigorate the work programme on electronic commerce on a practical
basis.  This was understood to be without prejudic e to any delegation's position on the status of the
1998 Declaration (WT/MIN(98)/DEC/2).  The CTD was among four subsidiary bodies invited to pick
up their work on e-commerce within their respective spheres of competence, identify cross-sectoral
issues, and report back to the General Council at its regular meeting in December 2000.  At its30
th Session, the CTD agreed to organize an informal meeting of the CTD jointly with Geneva Week
to obtain briefings from various agencies to help formulate the CTD's report to the General Council.
During this informal meeting, representatives of UNCTAD, ITC, ITU, and WIPO made presentations
on their work on electronic commerce, and the CTD also heard from Secretariat staff on WTO's work
in this field.  There had been some limited time to discuss some concerns and questions raised byMembers.
46. The Chairman underlined a few points which seemed to emerge from the meeting:
• Given the evolving nature of electronic commerce, policymakers as well as
businesses were continuously confronted with new challenges as well asopportunities;
• E-commerce could contribute to the greater and more effective participation of
developing countries in world trade.  There had been a few success stories in this
regard.  However, as one speaker pointed out, only 2 per cent of the world population
was currently on-line.  Many developing countries had capacity constraints which
prevented them from participating actively in electronic commerce.
• A number of international organizations were providing technical assistance towards
enhancing the participation of developing countries in electronic commerce and were
addressing legal and regulatory issues arising from the spread of electronic
commerce.  It was crucial that their efforts worked in the same direction and were
better coordinated.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 9
• Developing countries, which relied on customs revenue much more than developed
countries, were questioning the fiscal implications of electronic commerce.
47. The Chairman said the briefings had been very useful, but it seemed that the CTD might
consider going into the matter in more depth.  Based on the discussions during the last two meetings
of the CTD, the Chairman had circulated a draft report for the General Council, for consideration by
the CTD.  The Chairman said he would, pending agreement by Members, submit the report to theGeneral Council, on his own responsibility, for the December meeting.
48. The representative of the United States said that, the wording of paragraph 2 needed to read,
"without prejudice to any decision that may be ta ken by the General Council relating to the work
programme on electronic commerce, including its st ructure", as it was the understanding of her
delegation that the structure of the work programme was not the only issue to be taken up by the
General Council at its December meeting.  She recalled that in discussions in the CTD, her delegation
had stated on a number of occasions that electronic commerce was a tool for development, and notsimply an area of which developed countries had taken advantage and where they had made advances.
She said the United States had, once the WTO had agreed to the 1998 Declaration which included
reference to the specific financial and economic needs of developing countries, initiated, in addition to
the Africa project on electronic commerce, a specialised pilot project which covered countries from
all areas of the world.  She said that electronic commerce had in the United States been an engine forthe growth and development of small and medium-scale enterprises, by helping them play on a level
playing field with larger enterprises.  She said that e-commerce would be of benefit to countries
considering themselves to be small economies, as well as larger developing  economies which needed
to compete with one another  as well as developed economies.  She said that cooperation between
firms in developed and developing countries le d to a win-win situation, where developed country
companies had access to additional markets and developing countries gained access to markets
previously unexploited.  She pointed to examples mentioned in other fora which showed that
developing countries could market traditional produ cts over the Internet; to research by the UNCTAD
that had illustrated some of the markets in which developing countries could participate; and to the
example of India which was a leader in the export of software products and whose success could beemulated by smaller economies.  She said that the United States had enhanced the pilot project, and
was working on joint bilateral projects.  The United  States recognised that capacity-building was a
critical area for developing countries in relation to e-commerce.  She said that electronic commerce
created a better environment for access to technology.  She also recalled that a number of developed
countries announced in Okinawa, Japan a major initiative which was geared to capacity-building, andwhich introduced "DOT Force", that is the Digital Opportunity Task-Force aimed at addressing the
"digital divide".  She said she had referred to these different initiatives as they were complementary to
the exercise being undertaken in the WTO, which was distinctly related to trade liberalisation and the
avoidance of measures that would impede the growth  of e-commerce and the advantages to be derived
by developing countries.  Her delegation had stated in other bodies that it was clear that WTO rules
did apply in the area of electronic commerce.  What was being engaged in was clarification on how
such rules helped foster electronic commerce for developed and developing country Members of theWTO.  Her delegation endorsed the elements highlighted by the Chairman in the draft report, adding
that further consideration could be given to the elements of the seminar on electronic commerce to be
held in 2001.  She recalled that the CTD had held a seminar in 1999 which had been of value to large
degree because of the participation of developing c ountry entrepreneurs, including from Africa.  She
said that it had been encouraging to hear of developments from such participants.  It was thereforeuseful to see what could be done through the CTD and its proposals to the General Council, and
through the work of other international organisations.  Her delegation had seen a circular from the
Director-General that a symposium was to be held on 31 October on the results of the ITC Executive
Forum, which had been a very hands-on and practical exercise.  She said that it was her understanding
that participants from the private sector were also to take part.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 10
49. The Chairman recalled that the nature of the seminar could also be taken up in the context of
discussions on the draft work programme for 2001.
50. The representative of Japan said his delegation had found the informal session held on
25 October had been informative.  He noted that many delegations had stated that developmental
issues raised in connection with e-commerce had wider implications.  His delegation was thereforeconvinced that the realisation of "e-equality" required serious examinations in a horizontal manner.
His delegation was of the view that electronic commerce had become an engine of economic growth
and the expansion of trade, and emphasised the importance of the role of the private sector and the
avoidance of unnecessary government restrictions or regulations.  Turning to the draft report by the
Chairman, the representative of Japan recalled that the CTD had identified in document
WT/COMTD/19 an illustrative list of points for furt her study on a horizontal basis.  According to that
document, points included:  Would unrestricted, unregulated electronic commerce provide increasedmarket access for enterprises in developing countries?  How would supply and demand for particular
goods and services be affected by electronic commerce on a disaggregated level?  What were the
substitution effects of e-commerce in trade?  What effects would e-commerce have on competition in
different sectors?  What would be the impact of e-commerce on domestic producers in specific
sectors?  What were the effects of inter-firm relations in e-commerce?  How would e-commerce affectMembers' obligations and commitments in the WTO Agreements?  Therefore, in the CTD's report to
the General Council in December 2001, and in the co ntext of the General Council's request that the
subsidiary bodies identify cross-sectoral issues, Japan proposed that the Chairman make the following
points in his report:  first, after paragraph 4 of the draft report, he said a statement needed to be made
to the effect that the CTD had identified an illustrative list of questions warranting further study on ahorizontal basis.  Second, that at the 30
th and 31st Sessions of the CTD Members had raised as issues
the participation of developing country Members in electronic commerce; how to deal with the
"digital divide"; classification issues;  and the simplification of trade procedures through electronic
means. There was broad support for the view that such issues be explored through an ad hoc task
force and within a reasonable time-frame.  Commenting on paragraph 3 , his delegation thought thatparagraph 3 was correct, but should be modified to read "development aspects of electronic commerce
do not relate particularly to goods, services, and so forth".
51. The representative of Argentina said that hi s country attached great importance to all the
points for further study identified by the CTD.  It attached particular importance to the third point in
paragraph 4 which related to the impact of electronic commerce on customs revenue. Argentina also
had an interest in the impact of electronic comm erce on other fiscal revenues, and suggested that the
wording on point 3 of paragraph 4 be amended to reflect this.
52. The representative Pakistan said that his delegation needed more time to dwell on the draft
report.  From the outset, his delegation could go along with paragraphs 1,2,5 and 6 without changes.
In connection to paragraphs 3 and 4, he referred to WT/COMTD/19, and said that any a priori
exclusion of any of the points in the illustrative list for further study refered to in that document,
would not be beneficial.  He said that the issues raised in paragraphs 24 to 35 of the illustrative list ofWT/COMTD/19 could not be taken in isolation, and it was not possible to say that discussions on
these items had been exhausted.  His delegation shared the view that electronic commerce had an
impact on revenues other than customs revenue, and this needed to be taken into account.  His
delegation was of the view that the best way to proceed would be to have informal consultations on
the draft report.  His delegation did not wish to comment on the question of cross-cutting issues, asthat was a discussion best left for the future.
53. The representative of Uruguay said his delegation was open and flexible with regard to the
draft report by the Chairman to the General Council.  Notwithstanding this, his delegation wished to
recall that the mandate set by the General Council on 17 July established 3 points: first, that the four
subsidiary bodies were to reinvigorate their work programmes in their respective areas of competence;WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 11
second, the four subsidiary bodies were to identify horizontal issues, that is issues which went beyond
the ambit of their own particular areas of competence, and which had a relation to various sectors and
ambits of the organisation.  The third point was that results of the work were to be communicated to
the December General Council meeting.  His delegation was of the view that the CTD needed to take
into account document  WT/COMTD/19, where in paragraphs 24 to 35 an illustrative list of questionswas identified for further study.  The range of issues identified in this document went well beyond the
range of issues identified in paragraph 4 of the draft Chairman's report.  He said it was one thing to
identify issues for the sake of identifying them, and another for to identify issues for the sake of
further study.  The later aim was the intention of paragraphs 24 to 35 of Document WT/COMTD/19,
and this had not yet been fulfilled.  The time remaining until the December meeting of the General
Council was not sufficient to exhaust the discussion of the questions identified.  In this sense, his
delegation was flexible as to the report that the CTD was to forward to the General Council, but was
of the view that the issues identified in the CTD required in depth study, and that therefore the work
of the CTD on electronic commerce needed to proceed beyond December.  Regarding the mandate by
the General Council to identify cross-cutting issues, his delegation was of the view that the very
theme of development was a horizontal one in its relationship to electronic commerce.
54. The representative of Mauritius said that his delegation could only make preliminary
comments at the 31st Session.  His delegation recognised the value of having the non-resident
Members and Observers participate in the informal session on electronic commerce held on
25 October 2000.  He said that the statements made by the USA and Japan were useful, and that the
Chairman, in re-drafting the report, should make use of the creative language employed by Japan and
terms such as "e-equality" and "Digital Divide".  His delegation shared the view expressed byPakistan that the CTD should not seek to pre-empt the discussion of any issue.  With reference to
paragraph 3, he suggested that the definition of the CTD's mandate be an inclusive one rather than an
exclusive one; it was difficult to say that the CTD's work did not relate to intellectual property, goods
or services.  With regard to bullet 1 of paragraph 4, it was important to link the work of the WTO with
that of other international organisations.  Another question was how could the work of the WTO wastied up in the work of the Integrated Framework, particularly if questions related to infrastructure
were to be addressed.  He said that the representative of the United states had made a useful
intervention relating to the role of electronic commerce in small economies, and added that since she
had identified Mauritius as a small economy, this meant that she did indeed have a definition of small
economies.
55. The Chairman clarified that it was not the intention of the report to state that the work of the
CTD did not relate to goods, services, and intellectual property.  The point was that the work of the
CTD was cross-cutting and related to these issues and others.  The point was taken that the
formulation could be made in a more felicitous manner.  In respect to the question of cooperation with
other organisations, he noted that paragraph 6 of the report allowed for the input of other
organisations.
56. The representative of Bangladesh said that his delegation agreed that electronic commerce
carried the potential to speed up the development of poorer countries.  His delegation was therefore
supportive of the work of the CTD on electronic commerce.   In this context, his delegation urged that
the CTD connect its work with recent initiatives undertaken by two large economies – the "Internet
for Economic Development" of the United States and the Okinawa Initiative launched in Japan.  His
delegation stressed the importance of institutional coordination with these two initiatives.  Referringto paragraph 6 of the draft Chairman's report, his delegation suggested that after the words
"cooperation with other agencies" be inserted the words " and countries, particularly the recent
Japanese and US initiatives in this area".
57. The representative of India said that the briefing session of 25 October had provided a wealth
of information on the economic, developmental and financial aspects of global electronic commerce.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 12
She said that some of the suggestions for modification to the draft Chairman's report went somewhat
beyond the scope of discussion held in the CTD at its 30th Session and 31st Session.  Her delegation
understood that reports made by the Chairman were to be of a factual nature, and that this particular
report was to be on the progress made by the CTD on all aspects of the mandate.  The report needed
to bring out those instances when horizontal issues were discussed, and instances when - if at all - anyof the substantive issues were discussed.  She had attended the briefings made by the international
organisations and the WTO secretariat during the in formal session of the CTD of 25 October devoted
to electronic commerce.  She did not agree with everything that had been said on that occasion:  in
particular, she had heard it stated that the GATS guaranteed the right to do business electronically,
that this was neither accidental nor incidental, and that this had been in the mind of some negotiators
involved in the GATS.  She had also heard it said that technological neutrality was fundamentally
important and that this was an issue which had emerged from the work programme.  She said that shehad revisited the reports made by the subsidiary bodies to the General Council, and could not find any
agreement by Members that these were conclusions that had been collectively reached.  While she did
not intend to engage into a substantive discussion on matters that were under the remit of the Council
for Trade in Services, she was of the view that it was useful to report that a briefing session had been
held on 25 October, and that at the 31
st Session there had been no substantive discussion, as the
agenda itself only provided for a consideration of the report to the General Council.  She said that, in
order that the report remain factual, paragraph 2 of the report which read that the "CTD sees an
interest in continued work", should also reflect the fact that the CTD had not completed its work (as
was well set out in WT/COMTD/19) that it could not take up further work on any of the issues listed
for further work, and that hence it endorsed continuation of work on development-related aspects ofelectronic commerce.  With respect to paragraph 3, she said that she agreed that the economic,
financial and development needs were set out in the Global Declaration of May 1998, and that work
on development related aspects of electronic commerce was of a cross-cutting nature, but that the
view of her delegation was that the work of the CTD was complementary to that of the three other
councils.  That is, the other three councils were supposed to take into consideration the economic,financial and developmental aspects of electronic commerce in their own mandates.  With respect to
paragraph 4, she echoed the views expressed by other delegations that it may not be appropriate to
single out three issues from the list contained in paragraphs 24 to 35 of document WT/COMTD/19.
She said that instead of identifying any of the tiret s, the CTD should note that an illustrative list of
points which had been identified in July 1999 was not taken up in any of its areas and that it should be
noted that these remained areas where further study was required.  Her delegation noted that Japanese
delegation had made mentioned of a number of further interesting areas for study such as the greaterparticipation of developing countries in electronic commerce.  Her delegation was of the view that the
CTD should consider ways and means of enhancing the participation of developing countries in
electronic commerce, and that it was necessary to ensure that the market access opportunities for
developing countries were not eroded by the substitution of traditional means of conducting
commerce by electronic means.  She said that in respect of paragraph 6, the Global MinisterialDeclaration provided for taking into account the work conducted in other organisations, and her
delegation was flexible as to what could be undertaken in terms of collaboration, provided the
mandate set out by the Declaration was respected.  Referring to the point made by the delegation of
Japan that the CTD had identified a number of issues for further work to be addressed by a horizontal
task force in a non-negotiating way.  She said that this was an issue in respect of which the Chairmanof the General Council was holding consultations on how to proceed, and that it was not appropriate
to make any substantial reference to this topic in the CTD's report.
58. The representative of Canada said that over the past two years, the four subsidiary bodies
concerned had conducted useful work on electronic commerce, but that further work needed to be
done.  He said that there was a benefit to having a broad perspective on electronic commerce. Hisdelegation was of the view that the establishment of an ad hoc horizontal task force under the auspices
of the General Council was a good way of maintaining this broad perspective.  The ad hoc task force
was to operate on a non-negotiating basis,  was to have clear terms of reference, and its existence wasWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 13
to be reviewed at the next Ministerial Meeting.  His delegation supported the proposal made by Japan
that the CTD in its report to the General Council mention the existence of support in the CTD for the
examination of cross-cutting issues through the establishment of  a horizontal, non-negotiating task
force.  His delegation supported the reformulation suggested by the United States to paragraph 2 of
the draft Chairman's report in order that it read "without prejudice to any decision that may be taken
by the General Council relating to the work programme on electronic, including its structure".  His
delegation supported the Japanese proposal to repl ace the "CTD's work" with "development related
aspects".  With regard to paragraph 4, his delegation found it useful to draw on the illustrative list.
Referring to comments made by Bangladesh on donor initiatives, his delegation was of the view that
Canadian efforts should also be included, in particular the efforts of the Canadian Development
Research Centre to provide Internet access in Asia and Africa.
59. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation could have lived
with the report as it had been originally presented, but that since others had made comments he would
do so as well.  His delegation did not think it opportune to substitute the discussion held elsewhere on
a horizontal task force by a new discussion on the same topic in the CTD.  He noted that paragraph 4
raised a number of questions, and that issues which  had been discussed went beyond what was stated
in paragraph 4.  It was important to concentrate on what the CTD could put forward in this discussion,and a treatment of classification and other such issues within the CTD was unlikely to be of help
unless there was a clear reason to do so from a development point of view.  His delegation was of the
view that perhaps the formulation of paragraph 4 could be amended to convey that there was no
foreclosure of a discussion on any particular issue elsewhere.  He said that if a precise input was to be
made by or after December, it was important to concentrate on the experience and know-how the
CTD could bring to the broader discussion that was going on elsewhere, and to avoid duplication.
60. The representative of Norway stressed that his delegation concurred with a number of the
comments made by Japan and Uruguay.  However, he agreed with others that it was not the task of the
CTD to prolong the discussion on how work on elec tronic commerce should be organised.  It was
necessary to address the request from the General Council on how to address cross-cutting issues.The draft Chairman's report, as it stood, did not respond to that specific request of the General
Council.
61. The representative of Switzerland said her delegation supported the statements made by
Japan, Canada and others regarding horizontal issues, and supported that the establishment of an
ad hoc task force on electronic commerce be stated in the report to the General Council.
62. The Chairman proposed that the various suggestions for modification to the report be taken
into account and that a revised draft report be circulated to Members in time for the resumption of the
31st Session on 8 November 2000.
63. It was so agreed.
RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSION OF ITEM E ON 8 NOVEMBER 2000
64. The Chairman recalled that, following the 30th Session of the CTD in September, an informal
meeting of the CTD was organized jointly with Geneva Week to obtain briefings from various
agencies to help the CTD to formulate its report  to the General Council.  During this informal
meeting, representatives of UNCTAD, ITC, ITU, and WIPO made presentations on their work on
electronic commerce and we also heard from Secretariat staff on WTO's work in this field.  The CTD
also had some limited time to discuss some concerns and questions raised by Members.  On the basis
of the discussions, the Chairman had prepared the draft report on e-commerce that was discussed atthe  meeting on 27 October 2000.  At that meeting a number of comments were offered on the draft,
and on the basis of those comments the Chairman had prepared a new draft for consideration by theWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 14
CTD.  This document, which inter alia re-listed all the "points for further study" that were brought up
in the earlier meetings of the CTD, had been distributed and was available in the room.  He said he
presented this report, as a Chairman's report – not necessarily as an agreed report of the CTD - to the
December meeting of the General Council.  The Chairman proposed that the report be discussed in
informal mode.  The Secretariat would, in the ligh t of any comments, make any further adjustments
that were necessary to enable the CTD to be in a position to take note of the report.
65. [Informal Discussions].
66. The Chairman circulated a revised draft report, and proposed that this be forwarded to the
General Council (WT/COMTD/26).
67. It was so agreed.
F. MARKET ACCESS FOR EXPORTS OF THE LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES –
INFORMATION PROCEDURES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON
CONSULTATIONS
68. The Chairman said that in the past he had recalled to the attention of the CTD that, normally,
notifications and information provided on changes to GSP were sent to the CTD under the provisions
of the Enabling Clause.  Accordingly, information on any actions taken by Members under their GSPschemes in favour of LDCs were normally be provided in this way, and indeed at the last meeting,
Canada had made a statement to the CTD of planned changes in their programmes to increase market
access for LDCs.  On the other hand, steps taken by developing countries under the 1999 Waiver on
Preferential Tariff Treatment for LDCs were to be  notified to the Council on Trade in Goods.  The
Chairman had had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the WTO Legal Affairs Division, and itseemed that the most pragmatic solution to achieve consistency in the examination process was for
both the Council for Trade in Goods and this Committee to refer notifications under the Enabling
Clause and the 1999 waiver to the Sub-Committee on LDCs, for substantial examination and
reporting back.  The Chairman indicated that he had consulted on this issue with the Chairman of the
CTG who had agreed that this was a pragmatic approach that he could also propose to the CTG whenit met again.
69. The representative of Sri Lanka said her delegation had some reservations regarding  the
procedure proposed.  She recalled that at the outset some Members had highlighted certain difficulties
they would encounter with respect to the waiver because it was argued that the basis for notifications
was the Enabling Clause.  Others Members had argued that a waiver was necessary.  She said that the
Chairman now proposed that notifications be done under the Enabling Clause, and that she could not
understand the rationale behind this proposal. She said that a mistake had been made to introduce awaiver and then say that notifications were to be made under the Enabling Clause.  She said that if
one looked to past practice, the GSP was introduced as a waiver, and was then brought under the
Enabling Clause in 1979.  She said her similar exerci se needed to be done with the waiver for LDCs,
and until such time her delegation would have certain reservations.
70. The Chairman said it was not entirely clear as to what the import of the statement made by the
representative of Sri Lanka was.  He recalled that changes to the GSP were notified under the
Enabling Clause, so that any changes in respect of LDCs would also be made under the Enabling
Clause.  He said that the 1999 waiver decision required that notifications were to be made to the
Council for Trade in Goods, and that as a result , market access measures in respect to LDCs were
notified to two different WTO bodies: those taken under the Enabling Clause went to the CTD, andthose taken by developing countries under the 1999 waiver went to the CTG.  The objective was toWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 15
have all notifications pertaining to LDCs referred to a single body – namely the Sub-Committee on
LDCs – for substantive consideration and reporting out.
71. The representative of India requested that the Chairman circulate his proposal in writing.
72. The representative of Mauritius said it was in the interest of Members to treat the matter with
close care, and requested time to consult with capitals.
73. The representative of Sri Lanka endorsed the views of the Chairman relating to market access
mesures falling under the GSP, and said her delegation had no problem with such measures.  Her
delegation's concern was with measures falling outside the scope of the GSP.  She referred to the case
of South Korea which had not been historically a preference giver  but which could claim to be a GSP
giving country.  She said that there were some developing countries that gave preference coverage
outside the GSP scheme, and her question was how these were to be notified.  She said that when a
waiver was given, the notifications made thereafter needed to be made on certain procedures. Therewas a legal lacuna that needed to be addressed.
74. The Chairman said that the legal lacuna was addressed by the 1999 waiver under which
developing countries could grant tariff preferences to least-developed countries.  The notification
requirements under the waiver were for preferences to be notified to the CTG, while notifications
under the Enabling Clause were made to the Sub-Co mmittee.  All that was being proposed was that
the notifications in respect of least-developed coun tries under both instruments be referred to the
Sub-Committee for substantive consideration.  He saw that there was a need for a greater level of
comfort on the part of delegations regarding the proposals, and he therefore proposed that further
consultations be held on the subject.
75. It was so agreed.
G. FINANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT – INPUT BY THE WTO TO UNITED NATIONS HIGH-
LEVEL CONSULTATION IN 2001
76. The Chairman recalled that, at its meeting on 17 July, the General Council decided that that
the contact point for an input to the UN High Level Event on Financing for Development, planned to
take place in 2001, be the CTD.  It was also agreed that the CTD Chairman be in contact with the
Preparatory Committee.
77. The date of the UN High-Level Event was not yet determined, but it was slated to take place
"before the end of 2001".  As members may be aware, the manner in which the UN had structured the
preparatory process for the High Level Event had been to establish six working groups: Domestic
Financial Resources;  FDI and other private flows;  International Trade;  International Financial
Cooperation through, inter alia, ODA; External Debt;  and Systemic Issues;  enhancing coherence andconsistency of the international monetary, financial and trading systems in support of development.  A
report by the UN Secretary-General was planned to be delivered to the Preparatory Committee by
mid-January 2001.  The WTO Secretariat was already involved in three of the preparatory working
groups:  on foreign direct investment and other priv ate flows; trade;  and systemic issues, and was
contributing to inter-Secretariat work on these topics.  The Chairman invited the Secretariat to briefthe CTD on the state of play.
78. The Director of the Development Division said that the WTO Secretariat was participating in
three inter-secretariat Working Groups in preparation for the High-Level Event: on "mobilizing
international resources for development:  foreign direct investment and other private flows";
"international trade"; and "addressing systemic issues;  enhancing the coherence and consistency ofWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 16
the international monetary, financial and trading systems in support of development".  The
Development Division of the WTO was  the lead WTO division on the "international trade" working
group, whose coordinator is Mr. J. Cuddy, Director, International Trade Division, UNCTAD.  The
Trade and Finance Division of the WTO was the lead division for the other two groups
(coordinators – Mr. Karl Sauvant, UNCTAD, and Mr. Barry Herrmann, UN, New York).  The reportsof the inter-secretariat Working Groups, which were currently at various stages of advancement, were
to feed into a report to be prepared by the Secretary-General of the UN, which was to be submitted to
the Preparatory Committee in mid-January:  The WTO Secretariat was involved in the preparations of
the various draft reports of the inter-secretariat working groups.  The PrepCom itself was expected to
start work in February 2001 (dates of 13-23 February were tentatively in the calendar). The co-chairs
of the PrepCom were Ambassador Jørgen Bøjer (Denmark) and Ambassador Asda Jayanama
(Thailand).
79. The Director of the Trade and Finance Division said that he was participating in his individual
capacity in the working groups, and not as the WTO representative, that the working group on
"mobilizing international resources for development:  foreign direct investment and other private
flows" was chaired by the UNCTAD and the draft of the report was nearly complete.  The report
made only passing reference to the WTO's work on Trade and Investment and Trade and Competition.
One of the 15 recommendations was relevant in this regard; the recommendation proposed that the
Secretary-General convene a series of "Global Hearings on Foreign Direct Investment" involving
business, civil society and governments, with a fact finding, rather than a prescriptive role, with an
aim to discuss the pros and cons of international investment agreement and their contribution to
development.  Regarding the working group on "addressing systemic issues;  enhancing the coherenceand consistency of the international monetary, financial and trading systems in support of
development", it had been thought that work was at an advanced stage, but that a new draft, prepared
in New York, had been received which was quite radically different from anything participants in the
working group had seen up to that point.
80. The Chairman said that when the issue had been discussed at the 30
th Session initially, it had
been agreed at that time that the Secretariat would produce an analytical paper, which the CTD was to
take along with other relevant material and discussions between Members,  to prepare its input for
submission to the preparatory committee.  He said that it appeared from the presentations made that
the Secretariat was not going to produce an analytical paper but was providing comments on a paper
prepared by the UNCTAD, and that this was to from part of the contributions on which the
Secretary-General would draw for the final report.  In these circumstances, the Chairman opened the
question of how to proceed.
81. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation had been under the
impression that a paper by the Secretariat had been in the making.  He also recalled that there had
been an impressive delegation from New York which had met with Members and the Secretariat and
had urged the WTO to make a substantive input.  The question now was how the CTD was to make
this substantive input into the trade chapter of the conference.  His delegation was of the view that the
request of the Preparatory Committee needed to be honoured, that a substantive debate needed to take
place in the organisation and that the expertise of the organisation needed to be used, and that
Members should not be presented with a paper that was not reflective of the variety of views within
the Membership.  His delegation was therefore of the view that the process to be followed was that
which had been set out in the 30th Session.
82. The representative of Zimbabwe said he wished to hear some comments from the observer
from the UNCTAD on this issue, and added that it was his concern was to ensure that whatever was
submitted to New York was discussed in the CTD.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 17
83. The representative of India said it would be useful if the briefings given orally could be
circulated in written form to Members.  It was also useful for the CTD to receive regular updates from
the Secretariat.  Regarding inputs into the proce ss, his delegation had not received any instructions
from it capital, and hence would make its views known in due course.
84. The representative of Egypt said that there were two issues: first, it was unclear how
Members would contribute to the inter-secretariat report which was to be forwarded to the Secretary
General for presentation to the UN membership.  Secondly, the WTO could also prepare its own input
to be sent directly to the Preparatory Committee for February 2000.
85. The Chairman said that this had indeed been the initial understanding, with the qualification
that the Secretariat's analytical paper would have been used as a background for discussion.
86. The observer from UNCTAD said that an inter-secretariat paper was in the process of
preparation.  The document had not been finalised.  A contribution from a regional consultative
meeting held in Addis Ababa was awaited.
87. The Director of the Development Division said that the WTO Secretariat paper was
commenting on the draft of a paper on trade prepared by the UNCTAD.  It was his understanding that
the paper was to be delivered to the UN secretariat in New York.  He said that the regional
consultations referred to by the observer from UNCTAD were a separate issue; these regionalconsultations had taken place since August, and there were five such consultations planned.
Representatives of the WTO had taken part in the consultations held.
88. The representative of the United States said that whatever contribution provided to the
Secretary-General should an include input from Members.  She said if there was to be a contribution
from the WTO, the Member-driven character of the organisation needed to be respected.  She saidthat if the Secretariat was preparing an analytical paper, Members could possibly be in a position to
provide some comments, but if the Secretariat was limiting itself to comment on a paper produced
elsewhere, the role Members was unclear.
89. The representative of Norway said that his delegation was concerned to ensure an active,
rather than reactive,  participation of the WTO in th is process.  He said there needed to be an input,
which included the views of Members.
90. The representative of Mexico said he shared the concerns of the United States and Norway.
He recalled that the CTD planned to consider its input to the High-level Meeting on 8 February 2001.
He said that the WTO had a comparative advantage in matters of trade, and that it should bring forth
its contribution regardless of the contributions made by other organisations.  The WTO had all the
tools in its hand to make comment on those parts of the document which were connected to WTO
activities.  He said that it was not clear whether by the end of December WTO Members were goingto have a document, or whether Members had to await February to make comments.
91. The Chairman said that the situation could be summed up as one in which Members clearly
desired for there to be a Member-driven input to the process.  He said that the original approach that
had been agreed would have had the Secretariat prepare an analytical paper as a basis for discussion,
and a basis on which Members could finalise their input to the Preparatory Committee.  He said thatthis paper was not under preparation; the Secretariat had been limiting itself to comment on papers
prepared elsewhere.  He said that given the clear desire of members for a Member-driven approach,
the approach that now needed to be taken was to invoke the original approach, namely to have an
analytical document which could be used as a basis for finalising it input.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 18
92. The Director of the Development Division sa id it was important that the CTD have an
opportunity to comment to the co-Chairs of the ev ent on Members' views.  He said there were a
number of  documents that Members could have for that meeting: one was the inter-secretariat paper,
though it remained to be seen whether the WTO Secretariat was in a position to associate themselves
with the paper.  The Secretariat could also make available the inputs it had itself made available forthe discussions on international trade; there may be other possibilities for an analytical paper; and
finally, there was the overview paper on Developments in the International Trading System which
was to be discussed in the General Council.
93. The Chairman said it was possibly useful to hold informal consultations in the CTD to the
possible elements of submission from Members, in order to obtain a sense of the direction in which
Members were headed, and to ascertain whether th ere was existing material on which Members could
draw, and what additional materials might be needed.
94. The representative of the European Communitie s said that the last remarks made by the
Chairman were along the right direction.  He said that the principle issue here was that the CTD had a
mandate from the General Council to be the focal point for discussions on Finance for Development,
and it was unclear how the CTD was going to fulfil that mandate.  He said that there had been an
agreed line on how to proceed, and his delegation saw no reason to depart from it without knowingthe reasons why and without having a better discussion on what the issue of a focal point actually
meant.  He said that cooperation between various secretariats seemed to be taking place, and Members
needed to be informed about this.  He agreed that it would be useful to hear in more detail from the
Chairman as to how he thought the CTD should proceed.  He said that either the CTD was serious
about its mandated role from the General Council, or else – and he found this undesirable – Memberswould have to face the fact that there was no role for the CTD in the Financing for Development
process.
95. The representative of Egypt said his delegation supported the holding of a discussion on the
basis of a document, and he recalled that a number of possible documents had been mentioned.  His
delegation was open as to which document was used as a basis for discussion.  His delegation alsosupported the proposal of holding informal discussion on the possible elements that could be used for
discussion on 8 February 2001.
96. The Chairman suggested that an informal meeting be held in which the CTD would look at
existing documentation, as well as illustrative elements that could be part of the structure of a
contribution that the CTD could make, and this would form the basis of the discussions at the
8 February meeting, which would have as its the objective  to make a contribution to the meeting of
the Prepcom later in February.  The Chairman said  that the Secretariat had given him an optimistic
indication that it would be possible to have  a draft paper ready in time for February on the basis of
informal discussions having taken place at sometime between 8 November and 8 February.
97. It was so agreed.
H. CTD WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2001
98. The Chairman put forward for the consideration of the CTD a draft work programme
for 2001.  This was originally contained in the document Job No.6422 of 16 October 2000.  The
Secretariat had made a revision of this draft, with some additional items and changes in proposed
dates, and this was available in the room. The programme had been drafted, following the pattern of
the year 2000, with Secretariat documentation on special and differential treatment, the participationof developing countries in world trade, and technical cooperation as "fixed" items, together with
presentations by other agencies on their technical assistance activities and a series of seminars onWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 19
topics of interest to Members.  Mention was made of a third Geneva Week for information purposes;
although this was not technically a CTD activity, staff of the Development Division, the Technical
Cooperation Division and the Secretariat Workin g Group on LDCs would be involved in its
preparation.  The timing of this event could also be subject to further discussion.  The Chairman said
that the distribution of the CTD's work at the various meetings took account of certain deadlines andthe availability of information. There were some specific deadlines for reporting, such as the report of
the JAG.  On the other hand, certain papers (e.g. the "participation" paper) could only be prepared
when data become available.
99. The Chairman said that, regarding seminars, two topics had been selected on the basis of
explicit proposals in the CTD.  In particular, Zambia had requested a seminar on Technology Issues,
and this was planned for February 2001.  A seminar on e-commerce, to be held in May 2001,
followed from the CTD's earlier discussion on the issue earlier, at the 30
th and 31st Sessions.  A third
seminar, possibly linked to the Geneva Week, was proposed for September 2001 on "Trade-Related
Policies and Strategies for Development".  This would look at national and multilateral policies and
strategies for development, and the interaction between the two. Some of these issues have been
raised during the discussion in 2000 of the Secretariat paper on the participation of developing
countries in world trade and the discussions on implementation of WTO agreements.  A number ofdeveloping countries are also concerned about developing an appropriate supply response to market
opportunities, and the discussion might therefore also encompass the kinds of domestic and external
policies, including appropriate macro-and micro policy structures, the identification and resolution of
bottlenecks, capacity-building, trade facilitation etc. needed to develop such a response.  The
Chairman said that in all cases, reports on the seminars by the Chairperson would be presented to thesubsequent CTD meetings for formal discussion and annexed to the minutes of those meetings.
100. The Chairman said that there was also scope for further formal or informal meetings, as
required, and drew the attention of the CTD to two proposed invitations:  first, to the OECD
Secretariat, and hopefully to the Chairman of the OECD Trade Committee, to present their paper on
"Trade with non-OECD Members".  This paper was currently in preparation within the OECDsecretariat.  A first draft was discussed at a recent meeting of the Trade Committee.  The OECD
Secretariat planned to present the final version of the paper to the Trade Committee in February 2001,
and was willing, if requested, to come to Geneva to present it to the CTD shortly after that meeting.
The second would be to the Co-Chairs of the United Nations' Financing for Development event, to
discuss with the CTD the progress being made in preparing for that event and to react to proposals
being put forward.
101. The Chairman proposed that the CTD move into informal mode to discuss the work
programme for 2001.
102. [Informal discussion.]
103. It was agreed to revert to discussion of this item at the next session of the CTD.
I. ANNUAL REPORT
104. The Chairman drew the attention of the CTD to a draft Annual Report for 2000 of the CTD to
the General Council contained in document WT/C OMTD/W/80.  The Chairman proposed that the
CTD revert to informal mode for Members to make  comments.  This was to allow the Secretariat to
take account any proposed changes.  The CTD would revert to formal mode later in the day to adopt
the report.
105. It was so agreed.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 20
106. [Informal Discussions].
107. The Chairman said that Members had before them the revised document which incorporated
comments made during the informal discussions.  The Chairman proceeded to draw the attention of
the CTD to the various modifications.
108. The representative of Zambia referred to paragraph 36 - relating to the Integrated
Framework – which he said was inconclusive.
109. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on Least-Developed Countries said that the
representative of Zambia was right in his observa tion that the paragraph suggested nothing definitive
in respect of work that was underway on the Integrated Framework, and that this reflected where
things were.  He said that the Secretariat had convened informal consultations for 17 November, and
that the Inter-Agency Working Group was to meet on 1 and 2 December to engage with donor
countries and Least-Developed countries.  There was also a session of the Sub-Committee on LDCsscheduled for 6 December.  He said that these were supplementary to the report, if the evolution of
consultations on improvements to the Integrated Framework  were to become more conclusive and
definitive, they could be reported at a later stage.
110. The representative of Zambia said that the impor tant thing was to have language that gave a
definite direction to work.  He also asked whether participants would be back from the Libreville
Ministerial meeting in time to attend the meting on 17 November 2000.
111. The Head of the Secretariat Working Group on Least-Developed Countries said that the
timing of meetings was never freely determined, that a number of factors – including logistical ones -
were involved and that quite frankly it was beyond anybody's ability to control.  He said that
17 November was the only slot available.  Regarding the language needed, he said that it was possibleto codify what he had said regarding work in progress on the Integrated Framework for inclusion in
the draft report.
112. The European Communities suggested the words "The CTD recognised the need for IF
reform, and Members agreed that consultation would continue".
113. The representative of Bangladesh said that, as far as his delegation was concerned, there was
no question of reform to the Integrated Framework, but rather a question of implementation of the
Integrated Framework.
114. The representative of the European Communities indicated that he had no objection to the
terms "implementation of the Integrated Framework" being used "rather than reforms to the Integrated
Framework".
115. The representative of Colombia said that the title of section L did not correspond to what was
being discussed in the paragraphs that came under it.  She said that paragraph 32 discussed the work
programme for 2000, and paragraph 33 the work programme for 2001, and that therefore the title of
the section be amended to reflect this.
116. The Chairman suggested that the text as amende d be circulated to Members, with any further
comments provided to the Secretariat by 15 November at the latest.
117. It was so agreed.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 21
J. CONSIDERATION OF "IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL
TREATMENT PROVISIONS IN WTO AGREEMENTS AND DECISIONS
(WT/COMTD/W/77)
118. The Chairman said that the document had been circulated to Members, and invited the
Secretariat to introduce the paper.
119. The Director of the Development Division apologised to delegations in view of the fact that
the document had only recently been delivered.  This was due in part to the fact that efforts had been
taken to ensure that all concerned divisions in the house had checked the document to ensure it was as
complete as possible.  The pressure of work leading up to Geneva Week had also been a factor.  The
document was an update of previous work undertaken in the CTD (notably documents
WT/COMTD/W/35 and WT/COMTD/W/66) and was pursuant to a request made by Members at the
29th Session of the CTD.  He said the objective was to provide an overview of the implementation of
the special and differential treatment provisions in the various WTO agreements and decisions.  He
said that in preparing the document, it had been possible to draw on the substantive information
available and discussions held in the various WTO committees.  The document also sought to
examine to what extent it was possible to measure, either qualitatively or quantitatively, the
implementation of various types of special and differential treatment.  There were a number ofinstances where it was possible to measure the implementation of WTO agreements, and part of the
information on this came through notifications, such as, for instance, under the Agreement on
Agriculture, or information on technical assistance provided by Members.  The paper had used a
six-fold typology of special and differential treatment provisions, which had been first used for the
1999 High-Level Symposium on Trade and Development.  The six types of special and differentialtreatment were specified in the document. Each of  the sections in the paper which dealt with a
particular agreement began with general comments, and then proceed to provide information on the
special and differential treatment by type of provision found in the agreement in question.
Information was presented in the form of a table, with one column  giving the provision, and a second
column, entitled "Comment" whic h showed how the different types of special and differential
treatment provision had been used and also contained references to the sources of information.  He
said that section C of the paper contained a table which showed the number of special and differential
treatment provisions by agreement and by type of special and differential treatment provisions.
120. The representative of Norway said that the paper was useful and comprehensive, though it
was regrettable that there had not been enough time for its consideration.  The paper would be given
wide circulation within his government agencies, and his delegation would come back with comments
at a later stage.
121. The representative of the United States said her delegation was amazed at the work
accomplished by the Secretariat given its overall workload.  Her delegation required more time to
examine the paper, and would come back with comm ents on the next occasion this agenda item would
be taken up.
122. The Chairman said that the subject would be kept on the agenda to allow for a fuller
discussion.  He proposed that the CTD revert to a consideration of the item at the resumption of the
31st Session on 8 November 2000.
123. The CTD reverted to informal mode to consider a paper by Mr. Constantine Michalopoulos
entitled "The Role of Special and Differential Treatment in the GATT and the WTO".WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 22
RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSION ON ITEM J ON 8 NOVEMBER 2000
124. The representative of the United States said that her government was in the process of a
lengthy review with its various agencies.  The Secretariat document (WT/COMTD/W/77) was very
useful as it highlighted various provisions and the different agencies responsible for implementing the
various provisions were being consulted.  An inter-agency meeting was to be held, and she hoped herdelegation would be in the position to make more detailed comments.  As such, her delegation hoped
that the CTD would carry over its discussion on the paper to future meetings of the CTD.  She said
that as a preliminary matter, the document did not always adequately describe the benefits developing
countries were already receiving in some areas covered by the provisions discussed.  For example,
there were  numerous statements criticising the GSP programmes, but there was no discussion of their
benefits.  Was one to assume that there were no benefits?  Nor was there any data presented on the use
of GSP programmes, nor on South-South trade between developing countries.  There had been somecomments made earlier on the discussion on market access for least-developed countries which were
thought-provoking and possibly overlapped with some of the points made under this rubric.  She said
that the paper should also be modified to take into account the benefits developing countries were
already receiving through technical assistance.  In redrafting the document, the Secretariat could also
take into account information on the participation of developing countries in international trade thatwas already being developed.  She said that in regard to certain cases where there was connection
between special and differential treatment provisions and technical assistance, there was already a
major debate on technical assistance throughout the WTO.  Her delegation wished for greater clarity
on how the discussion of technical assistance would dovetail into discussions on special and
differential treatment.
125. The representative of Sri Lanka said that owing to time constraints, her delegation had not
been in a position to consider the document in detail, and noted with satisfaction that this agenda item
was tabled in the coming sessions of the CTD.  She said that the document reflected most of the
comments made by different Members of the WTO.  She agreed with the United States that certain
provisions had generated benefits to developing countries.  In relation to the GSP, which had been inexistence prior to the WTO, she asked whether the Secretariat was in a position to provide some sort
of comparative study. Her delegation, along with others, was of the view that some of the benefits of
the GSP had been eroded through trade liberalisation and after the WTO  agreements had come into
force.  She did not know how such an exercise woul d fit into the discussion of special and differential
treatment, but it was important to examine whether there had been an enhancement of benefits under
the GSP, or whether these had been eroded.
126. The representative of Canada said that the document was a good summary of measures taken,
and it was valuable to have a listing of measures used to date.  Her delegation encouraged the CTD to
keep the issue under review and to continue to report on its findings.  Her delegation agreed with the
United States and Sri Lanka that it was important to identify when special and differential treatment
generated benefits to developing countries, and when it did not.
127. The representative of Zambia said that the issue of special and differential treatment was of
particular importance to LDCs.  His delegation wished to return to the subject at subsequent meetings.
128. The representative of the European Communities said his delegation was of the view that the
document represented a work in progress.  There were discussions going on regarding some of these
articles in the discussions on implementation – Article 66.2 of the TRIPs Agreement was one
example – and he hoped that there would be regular updates on these discussions.  He said that thedocument was also a useful basis for the discussions on special and differential treatment as such in
the implementation debate.  As a minor comment, he noted that panel findings were used in the
document, and there had been a recent panel finding in relation to Article 15 of the Agreement onWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 23
Anti-Dumping which could have been drawn upon;  this also highlighted the importance of up-dating
the document to ensure it reflected the state of play.
129. The representative of Mauritius said that the report was indeed voluminous, and his
delegation was impressed by the statistics brought out regarding special and differential treatment,
such as the fact that there were 145 special and differential treatment provisions, 107 adoptedfollowing the Uruguay Round, and 22 which applied to the LDCs.  He said that the approach taken by
the Secretariat was commendable since it identified the broad lines of special and differential
treatment.  He said that further time was needed to reflect on the document, though of course
delegations such as his were reflecting on the subject of special and differential treatment all the time.
He said his delegation remained to be impressed by some of the points identified in the document,
such as:  provisions aimed at increasing the trade opportunities of developing countries; provisions
under which WTO Members would safeguard the in terests of WTO developing country Members;
flexibility of commitments, of action, and use of policy instruments; transition time periods; technical
assistance; and provision relating to least-developed countries.  Speaking in his own delegation's
name, he said he wished to say that the African Group was seriously considering the document, and
expected to come back with comments at the next session of the CTD.
130. The representative of Switzerland said the document gave a global vision of special and
differential treatment.  Her delegation shared the views of the United States and Sri Lanka that it
would be useful to present the results and advantages of measures taken, as well as the problems
relating to the application of certain provisions, in order to draw lessons.  She said this would be a
long process, and looked forward to the continuation of the discussion.
131. The representative of Haiti said his delegation appreciated the document, and said that the
document would be of use in capitals.  He requested the Secretariat to make every effort to provide
translations of the documents into the other working languages of the WTO.
132. The Chairman said that discussion would continue under this agenda item.  The periodicity of
the updating of the document would have to be considered; the document was certainly a useful
reference document, and one which was helpful in assisting Members assess the situation with regardto special and differential treatment.
133. The Director of the Development Division said that there certainly was a need to keep the
document up to date.  This was reinforced by the statement made by the representative of the
European Communities; the panel findings in question had been officially made known shortly after
the document had been finalised.  He said there clear ly was a "moving target" aspect to the issue, and
that a number of requests and suggestions had been made.  There had been requests to present the
up-side and down-side of aspects of special and differential treatment, and in that respect theSecretariat was in the hands of the Membership.  The document reflected what had factually become
known, and comments made, in various committees, which perhaps explained why the document
recorded certain views and not others.  He noted that there had been requests for information on GSP
programmes, and it remained  to be seen in what context this could be done.  One possibility was to
look at the use of GSP in the context of the pape r on the participation on international trade, and it
was not clear to what extent information on preferences was currently available or reflected the
current situation.  In terms of updating WT/COMTD/W/77, he said that a discussion of a Secretariat
working paper on special and differential treatment had been incorporated in the draft work
programme for 2001, for the autumn 2001 meeting of the CTD, so there was scope for at least one
update.
134. The observer from UNCTAD drew the attention of the CTD to the UNCTAD work
programme on the GSP, which involved compiling information and raising awareness on the GSP
schemes, and monitoring improvements to the GSP schemes – including in the post-Uruguay RoundWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 24
setting.  He said that a newsletter was available on the UNCTAD web-site which reported changes to
GSP schemes made by preference donors.  In the course of 2001, the UNCTAD would be undertaking
a number of studies evaluating the impact of GSP schemes on preference-receiving countries.  He
recalled that at the CTD Seminar on Special and Differential Treatment held in March 2000, the
UNCTAD had made a short presentation on the GSP and on the impact of these schemes onpreference recipients.  The UNCTAD had a database on the GSP, and if WTO Secretariat so wished,
the UNCTAD could cooperate in providing information.
135. The Chairman said the CTD agreed that the Secretariat was to update document
WT/COMTD/W/77 on essentially an annual basis, and this did not preclude discussions of this
agenda item and WT/COMTD/W/77 in the interim.
136. The representative of Sri Lanka said that her delegation preferred to have an interim
"mid-term" review, given the discussions that were on-going on the subject of implementation, both in
the special session and various committees.  This would help Member countries identify where their
interest lay.  She said the format of reporting was to be left to the Secretariat.
137. The Director of the Development Division said that there were two things that needed to be
looked at: one was an annual updating of docum ent WT/COMTD/W/77; the other was how to keep
Members updated on work in the WTO.  He said it was important on one hand to keep Membersupdated while at the same time avoiding duplication of work carried out elsewhere.  This would have
to be looked into.
138. The Chairman thanked the Director of th e Development Division for his informative
response, and suggested that the question of periodicity be left open, and also that some consultations
be held with the secretariat to examine feasible solutions.  Nevertheless, there was agreement that theupdating of the document should take place annually.
K. TECHNICAL COOPERATION
139. The Chairman recalled that at the informal meeting on 17 October, the Secretariat presented a
paper entitled "A Strategy for Technical Assistance in the WTO".  This was a draft for the
consideration of Members and a revised text was to be made available for Members' consideration at
the resumption of the 31st Session on 8 November 2000.  He said that at the resumed meeting, the
WTO was to consider the Three-Year Plan for Technical Assistance (WT/COMTD/W/79).  He
proposed that the CTD continue in informal mode for further consideration of the draft text at the
present meeting, in order to obtain further comments on the draft "Strategy" paper.
140. [Informal Discussions].
RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSION OF ITEM K ON 8 NOVEMBER 2000141. The Chairman recalled that discussion of the Secretariat draft paper entitled "A Strategy for
Technical Assistance in the WTO" had taken place in informal mode at the first part of the
31st Session of the CTD on 27 October 2000.  He recalled that, at the previous meeting, some
Members wished to make further comments on the document, and it had been agreed to revert to this
issue in informal mode at the resumption of the 31st Session.  He said that the Director of the
Technical Cooperation Division;  the Director of the Training Division;  and the Head of the
Secretariat Working Group on Least-Developed C ountries and the Integrated Framework, were
present to answer any questions Members had in general terms or specifically relating to
least-developed countries.  The Chairman proposed that the meeting revert to informal mode.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 25
142. [Informal Discussions].
143. The meeting reverted to formal mode, and the Chairman drew the attention of the CTD to the
Three-Year Plan for Technical Cooperation which was contained in document WT/CTD/W/79/Rev.1
and Add.1.
144. The representative of the European Communities said his delegation took the document to be
a factual compilation of what had come in to date, and said that in light of the strategy, this was not be
the end-product.  He referred to page 10, and said that the country referred to as "Macedonia" should
be correctly referred to as "FYROM".
145. The representative of the United States said her delegation encouraged developing countries
to respond, had they not done so already, to the questionnaire prepared by the Secretariat.
146. The representative of Canada said her delegation encouraged proactive engagement in
assisting developing countries to identify their technical assistance needs, through the three-year
technical assistance plan.
147. The representative of Norway said his delegation considered the document that had been
prepared to be more a list than a plan.  His delegation wished to see a plan in due course, which
identified priorities, objectives, mode of delivery, time frames for implementation, as well as success
indicators.  He said, in addition, that if such a plan were to become reality, a stable funding base wasrequired, as it was not possible to plan anything without a secure budgetary basis.
148. The representative of Mauritius said that the plan was destined to remain a paper plan and a
paper tiger if it was not matched with budgeted funds.  He said that his delegation had highlighted the
views of the African Group relating to the questionnaires on technical assistance sent out by the
questionnaire.  He said that the response remained low, at around 20 per cent.  Referring to commentsmade by other delegations about the need to encourage developing countries to respond, he pleaded
for the indulgence of Members to see how best to take into account the concerns of Members,
including those who had not responded to the questionnaire.  He said that non-response should not be
seen as an outright disqualifier, because there were problems and reasons that were unknown to many
beneficiaries.  He said that the African Group shared the concern that there was a need to havepredictability and continuity, and, hence, to have a well-established programme that was prepared in
advance.  He asked that the concerns he had raised be taken into account when it came to approving
the plan.
149. The CTD took note of the Three-Y ear Plan and comments by Members.
L. OTHER BUSINESS
150. The representative of the Central African Republic, speaking on behalf of the Non-Resident
Members and Observers who had attended the S econd Geneva Week, read out the following
statement:
"From 21 to 27 October 2000, the World Trade Organization (WTO) organized, in
Geneva, the Second Geneva Week for the benefit of non-resident Members and
Observers.  At the end of this workshop, the delegates are pleased with the initiativeand congratulate the WTO.  The professional quality of the speakers, the relevance of
the themes discussed and the consistency of the discussions made this Second Geneva
Week a success.  The delegates of the non-resident Members and Observers are
happy with the perfect coordination between the WTO and the specialized agencies ofWT/COMTD/M/31
Page 26
the United Nations at Geneva, which aims to promote the harmonious integration of
developing countries in world trade.  In addition, the non-resident Members and
Observers recognize the need to hold th e "Geneva Week";  they congratulate the
Director-General of the WTO, Mr. Mike Moore, and the Deputy Directors-General,
and encourage them to continue to promote exchanges of view between theOrganization and the non-resident Members and Observers.  The delegates express
their profound thanks to the Chairman of the General Council, the Chairs of
Committees, the speakers and to the administrative and support staff who spared no
effort to make the week a success."
151. There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the 31
st Session of the CTD.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 27
ANNEX
SEMINAR ON SMALL ECONOMIES - 21 OCTOBER 2000
Report by the Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development
A Seminar on Small Economies was held at the WTO on 21 October 2000 under the auspices
of the Committee on Trade and Development.  The purpose of the seminar was to allow a frank
exchange of views on the issue and to provide an input into the Committee's consideration of the
question.  (The seminar was also considered to be part of the "Geneva Week" for non-residentMembers and Observers of the WTO.)
The seminar addressed two basic questions: the nature of the problems facing small
economies and the possible solutions to those problems.
There was a broad measure of agreement that pursuing the question of definition was of
limited value, but some participants felt that self-definition would be appropriate.  The
methodological and other difficulties surrounding th e computing of indices of vulnerability was also
noted.  It was widely agreed that it was more  important to focus on the problems and possible
solutions.  As to the sources of vulnerability, small economies were characterised by a number offactors, some of which were inter-related.  These include: (i) the limited size of their domestic market,
reducing the scope for exploitation of economies of scale; (ii) the limited diversification of their
export structure, both in relation to the range of products and concentration on a few markets;
(iii) vulnerability to external and exogenous shocks, including natural disasters, and a limited
adjustment capacity to these shocks; (iv) remoteness from markets and transport costs; (v) limitedhuman resources and other factor endowments; (vi) shortfalls in institutional and administrative
capacity.
While openness to trade may sometimes exacerbate vulnerability, such openness also
afforded the opportunity to develop global industries, beyond the limited local market, and could also
be a motor for growth and development.
There was broad agreement that internal reforms and policy measures were critical in
addressing the problems of the small economies and in  determining their participation in international
trade and the global economy.  Such reforms and measures included sound macroeconomic
management.  At a microeconomic level, it was important that small economies take advantage of
technological developments, and that they target production to areas of comparative advantage,including those where economies of scale were not a fundamental determinant of competitiveness.
E-commerce, tourism, financial services were cited as examples.  Diversification of production and
trade, while desirable, was difficult to achieve as it often required a significant amount of investment
and training, and larger economies often seemed more attractive to foreign investors because of the
size of their home markets.  Flexible labour market policies, domestically and regionally, could alsobe important, alongside other measures, to address supply side bottlenecks.
However, there was broad support for the view that internal reforms and policy measures
needed to be complemented by international endeavours.  For example, the exports of the small
economies often faced high tariff rates and non-tariff barriers in foreign markets.  There was a needfor enhanced, secure and predictable market access for exports of interest to small and vulnerable
economies.WT/COMTD/M/31
Page 28
Participants felt that regional cooperation among small economies could help them overcome
certain difficulties through the pooling together of their resources, including in international trade
negotiations, at the bilateral, regional and multilateral levels.  However, there was also a view that
regional organizations could not fully represent all the interests of member states.  The possibility of
establishing regional trade agreements to expand market opportunities and to allow for a widerproduction base was supported by a number of participants, but others pointed out that, even working
together, their combined size was still much less than other countries.
In relation to multilateral rules, participants suggested that an issue-by-issue approach might
be taken in assessing how to respond to the constraints faced by small economies.  Among the
possible mechanisms that might be used were asymmetrical transition periods, flexibility provisions
and adjustment mechanisms, none of which were new to the WTO.
A number of participants felt that the difficulties in terms of financial and human resources
faced by small economies in making use of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism needed to be
addressed as a matter of priority, through the provision of appropriate technical and financial
assistance.
Representatives of small economies highlighted the great difficulties they confronted in fully
participating in the work of the WTO.  Some did not have the resources to maintain a mission in
Geneva, but capacity constraints in capitals were also a problem.  It was therefore necessary to
establish mechanisms through which participation and representation could be enhanced.  In thiscontext participants also emphasised the need for adequate technical assistance, and in this respect the
importance of funding the delivery of WTO technical cooperation on a secure and predictable basis.
During the seminar, it was mentioned that there were a number of regional initiatives being
undertaken at present to strengthen the participation of the small economies in the WTO, for example,through the establishment of regional representation by the Pacific Forum countries and EC support
for ACP representation.  It was noted that there were communities of interests between small
economies, LDCs and larger developing countries on many trade issues – such as greater market
access or contingent trade remedies – that could be explored and built upon in the context of
multilateral negotiations and through greater networking.  On the other hand, there was also a view
that there were limits to regional cooperation, a nd nothing could fully substitute for representation in
Geneva.
Some participants called for the establishment of a work programme to look at the specific
problems and needs of small and vulnerable economies.  In the first stage, this might take the form of
analysis of the trade of small economies, the extent to which they had benefited from provisions for
special and differential treatment and the main obstacles to the provision of such treatment.  A secondstage might attempt to establish prescriptions to overcome these problems and the means for their
implementation.  One participant suggested that such  work could be undertaken jointly by the WTO
Secretariat with the collaboration of other agencies, as appropriate.
Finally, addressing the problems of small economies clearly requires a comprehensive and
coherent approach that extends beyond the trade field.  In particular, integrated initiatives are required
to address the supply side bottlenecks that constrain the participation of small economies in the global
economy.  In this respect, a number of international organizations present during the seminar outlined
their technical assistance and capacity building programmes which could be of special interest to
small and vulnerable economies, and two developed Members gave an indication of programmes thatcould also be of assistance.
__________