RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/COMTD/M/28/Add.1
2 August 2000
(00-3174)
Committee on Trade and Development
Twenty-Eighth Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 10 MARCH 2000
Chairperson:  H.E. Mrs. A.C. Diallo (Senegal)
Addendum
C. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT :  REPORT BY CHAIRPERSON ON SEMINAR HELD ON
7 MARCH 2000
Please find below the note prepared on the Seminar by the Chairperson.
_______________
Note on Seminar on Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries
held at WTO on 7 March 20001
The Seminar on Special and Differential Treatmen t for Developing Countries was held at the
request of Members of the WTO Committee on Trade and Development (CTD).  The objective was to
explore different facets of special and differential treatment (S&D), outside of a negotiating context,
and outside of a formal session of the CTD in order both to allow a frank exchange of views on theissue and to provide an input into the Committee's consideration of the question.  Background
material included WTO documents, material provided by other organizations and papers prepared by
some panelists.  A copy of the programme is attached.
The seminar was divided into six sessions:  on th e overview of S&D provisions in the WTO and
their objectives;  on the role of GSP and other pref erences; on the function of technical assistance as an
element in S&D;  on the implementation of S&D unde r the main WTO Agreements;  on the relationship
between S&D treatment and developi ng country reforms;  and finally, on the future of special and
differential treatment.
During the first session, the panelists discussed the origins of S&D provisions and their
evolution since the introduction of the first such provision in 1955.  Waivers for non-reciprocal
trading arrangements (e.g. Lomé, CBI, etc.), Generalized System of Trade Preferences (GSP), and the
Enabling Clause were highlighted as having been some of the main initiatives over the years.  It was
pointed out that there had been a shift in attitudes towards S&D over time, especially between theTokyo and the Uruguay Rounds.  Some argued that  the realization that S&D had not yielded many
tangible results had led developing countries to accept a dilution of S&D provisions in return for
improved market access to developed country markets.  Others claimed that since existing S&D
provisions were not legally enforceable and had not been properly put into effect, it was not possible
                                                     
1 Job No. 1554.WT/COMTD/M/28/Add.1
Page 2
to determine whether S&D as a concept had succeeded or failed.  In addition, it was argued, many
possible S&D benefits had been outweighed by losses due to protectionist arrangements of developed
countries in the agriculture and textiles sectors. Any evaluation or rethinking of S&D provisions
needed to be addressed in its historical and political  context, rather than in a purely legalistic manner.
Apart from a discussion of existing S&D provisions, some called for new arrangements for small andvulnerable economies.
In the second session, it was argued that given the large and widening disparities in income
levels between developed and developing economies and the higher levels of protection that still
existed on items of export interest to the developing countries, GSP as well as other forms of
preferential trade arrangements were still of major importance.  In 1997 about $100 billion worth of
imports into developed countries had benefitted from GSP schemes while levels of domestic andforeign direct investment in developing countries had in many regions remained insufficient to spur
growth.  Problems with GSP included the gradua l erosion of preferences due to overall tariff
liberalization as well as the complexity and unpredictability of the country schemes.  Measures such
as extending the scope of the schemes, relaxing their rules of origin, and complementing them with
other supply-side policies were mentioned as means of improving the functioning of GSP.  There wasa clear trend towards reciprocal preferential trading arrangements between developed countries and
developing countries and non-reciprocal ones be tween developed countries and LDCs.  GSP would
remain attractive for those countries which were not covered by these other schemes.  Some
participants in the seminar pointed out that one should not to be misled by aggregate results and
figures but rather focus on particular needs of countries at different levels of development.  Forexample, it was not LDCs but rather middle-income countries that stood to gain from GSP.
The third session opened with a review of the technical assistance (TA) activities of the
WTO, which had expanded considerably since 1995 (from 79 activities in 1995 to 382 in 1999), and
90 per cent of which were now financed through extra-budgetary contributions.  Not only had thenumber of activities per year increased but also the diversity of the subjects covered.  Modes of
assistance had varied from traditional national or regional seminars and workshops to more recent
courses using IT-based training instruments.  It was a commonly held view that the upcoming review
of the technical assistance programme needed to address two main issues to enhance effectiveness:
developing a coherent and systematic approach and securing a more predictable and sustainable
financial base.  Some participants in the seminar proposed that networks of regional groups, as well as
contributions from recipient countries within the limits of their resources, could be used to facilitateTA activities.  It was pointed out that TA was the least controversial of all S&D measures as it did not
require any trade preferences or concessions.  The objective was to assist developing countries in the
implementation of the agreements they had already signed on to.  Some argued that "soft" TA needed
to be complemented by "hard" modes of assistance, such as trade-related infrastructure support.  The
Integrated Framework, which was meant to address some of these concerns, still had conceptual aswell as coordination problems.
In the fourth session, it was stressed that, with  the introduction of new rules for world trade
under the Uruguay Round Agreements, the nature of S&D provisions had changed - from an emphasis
on preferential market access and non-reciprocity to a greater focus on transition periods, transfer of
technology, and capacity-building to assist developing  countries in integration into the trading system.
A number of participants said that S&D provisions  must address, concretely, the difficulties faced by
developing countries in integration - difficulties which might stem from such things as the size or trade
sera of the country, administrative shortfalls incl uding availability of trained personnel, or sectoral
constraints.  It was also argued that developing countries, being heterogeneous, did not necessarily fall
into clearcut groups and that similar problems migh t overlap currently accepted categories of developing
countries.  Some participants also emphasised that, if  S&D provisions were to be of value, they should
be expressed in legally binding commitments, ra ther than in ambiguous terms as at present.WT/COMTD/M/28/Add.1
Page 3
In the fifth session, differing views on the adjust ment process were expressed.  On the one hand,
economic reform and adjustment were necessary, essential conditions for economic growth and for
successful integration into the world economy.  It  was suggested that S&D provisions had been
counterproductive to the extent that they had delayed adjustment and encouraged the maintenance of
policies that favoured the interests of narrow, special interest groups.  On the other hand, others saw anneed for policy flexibility in developing countri es, given differences in economic conditions and
endowments, as well as the existence of market failures that, in the absence of corrective action, could
lead to misallocation of resources.  Participants did not agree on the role of subsidies in the economy,
whether as a spur to development or as a source of waste and inefficiency.
In the sixth and final session, some participan ts recalled the non-discriminatory basis of the
multilateral trading system and recognized the tensi on between this principle and observed inequalities
among WTO Members.  Some believed that, rather than addressing these inequalities, the experience of
S&D treatment was that it had increased them. Ce rtain aspects of S&D, such as non-reciprocal
preferences, had not been notably successful in all cases in promoting development and economic
integration.  The debate again turned around the questions of how S&D might be more closely
calibrated to the situation of individual developing countries and how far policy flexibility could be a
useful tool for promoting development.  One major developed market Ambassador, as a panellist,
outlined proposals that his delegation were considerin g for early action in the fields of market access for
LDCs and capacity building for developing countries in general.
The closing remarks made by Mr Ablassé Oued raogo, Deputy Director-G eneral of the WTO,
are being distributed separately and have also been placed on the WTO web site.WT/COMTD/M/28/Add.1
Page 4
Seminar on Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries
Organized under the auspices of the WTO Committee on Trade and Development
7 March 2000
Programme
The objective of the seminar is to explore different facets of special and differential treatment,
outside of a negotiating context, and outside of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) in
order both to allow a frank exchange of views on the issue and to provide an input into the
Committee's consideration of the question.
Participation is open to WTO Members and Observers and to Inter-Governmental
Organizations with observer status in the CTD
Welcome: Mr. A. Ouedraogo, Deputy Director-General
09:30-10:45 First Session:  Overview of S&D provisions and their objectives
The session would review the origins of special and differential treatment, as well as the
various WTO provisions.  How firm is the legal basis?  To what extent are these simply "best
endeavours"?
Chair: Amb. A.C. Diallo (Senegal), Chairperson of the Committee on Trade and
Development
Panelists: Mr. E. Kessie (WTO), Mr. B. Gosovic (South Centre), Amb. R. Smith (Jamaica).
Background material:  Secretariat paper for 1999 HLS on Trade and Development.  E. Kessie,
Analysis of the Legal Provisions relating to Special and Differential Treatment underWTO Agreements (mimeo).
10:45-11:45 Second Session:  GSP and other forms of preferences and their future
The session would look at the importance of GSP and other forms of preferences.  What are
its limitations? Who are the beneficiaries?  How much value has the system been?  How does
GSP compare with other forms of preferences?  Is there a tendency for preference systems to
evolve towards reciprocal trade agreements?
Chair: Amb. N. Benjelloun-Touimi (Morocco)
Panelists: Mr. B. Onguglo (UNCTAD), Mrs. S.  Page (ODI), Ms S. Rudder (Barbados).
Background material: B. Onguglo, Developing Countries and Trade Preferences, in M. Rodriguez
Mendoza, P. Low and B. Kotschwar, Trade Rules in the Making, Organization of American
States and Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC.
11:45-13:00 Third Session:  Technical Assistance as S&D
The session would look at technical assistance needs, including training, trade facilitation and
infrastructure? What is most effective? How can TA be best delivered? What are the roles of
different agencies?  How can coordination be improved?
Chair: Mr. O. Genee (Netherlands)
Panelists: Mr. S. Delgado (WTO), Amb. E. Custodio (Philippines), Mr. M.A. Mannan
(Bangladesh).
Background material: WTO Programme for Technical Cooperation, Note by the WTO Secretariat
(WT/COMTD/W/64 of 15 October 1999), Report  on Technical Cooperation and Training,
Note by the WTO Secretariat (WT/COMTD/W/62 of 6 May 1999).
13:00-14:30 Lunch breakWT/COMTD/M/28/Add.1
Page 5
14:30-15:30 Fourth Session:  Implementa tion of S&D under key WTO Agreements
The session would cover the difficulties of implementation by developing countries and
experience of application by trading partners (for example, in agriculture, anti-dumping,
customs valuation, dispute settlement).  What are the problems and how can they be resolved?
Chair: Amb. C.L. Guarda (Chile)
Panelists: Mr. C. Stevens (Institute of Development Studies), Amb. F. Cuello Camilo
(Dominican Republic), Amb. S. Narayanan (India).
Background material: Concerns Regarding Special and Differential Treatment Provisions in WTO
Agreement and Decisions,  Note by the WTO Secretariat (WT/COMTD/W/66 of15 February 2000.
15:30-16:30 Fifth Session:  Impact of S&D and developing country economic reforms
The session would cover the relationship be tween S&D and reforms being undertaken by
developing countries, autonomously or to comp ly with international obligations.  To what
extent do S&D provisions contribute to or detract from reform programmes?
Chair: Amb. K. Rana (Kenya)
Panelists: Mr R. Sharer (IMF), Mr B. Bora (UNCTAD), Amb. W. Corrales Leal (Venezuela).
Background material: Special and Differential Treatment and the Spaces for Policies in WTO:  Two
Elements of the Development Dimension in th e Multilateral Trading System, Proposal under
Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Geneva Minister ial Declaration, Communication from Venezuela
(WT/GC/W/279 of 29 July 1999).  M. Gibbs, Special and Differential Treatment in theContext of Globalization, note presented to the G15 Symposium on S&D Treatment in the
WTO Agreements, New Delhi, 10 December 1998.
16:30-17:30 Sixth Session:  The Future of Special and Differential Treatment
The session would cover various aspects of S&D, and its future.  Is there a case for the
development of economic indicators for the application of S&D?
Chair: Amb. G. Raby (Australia)
Panelists: Mr. C. Michalopoulos (World Bank), Amb. A. Akram (Pakistan),
Amb. D. Baichoo (Mauritius), Amb. R. Abbott (European Commission).
Background material: C. Michalopoulos, Trade and Development in the GATT and WTO: The Role of
Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries, mimeo.
17:30- 17:45 Closing Remarks:  Amb. A.C. Diallo,  Mr. A. Ou edraogo, Deputy Director-General
__________