RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/COMTD/M/28
13 June 2000
(00-2355)
Committee on Trade and Development
Twenty-Eighth Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 10 MARCH 2000
Chairperson:  H.E. Mrs. Absa Claude Diallo (Senegal)
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Chairperson said that the draft  agenda  for the meeting was contained in airgram
WTO/AIR/1248 of 21 February 2000.  There being no additions to the agenda, she proposed that the
agenda be adopted.
2. It was so agreed
B. ATTENDANCE OF AD HOC OBSERVERS
3. The Chairperson recalled that at the 25th Session of the Committee on Trade and
Development (CTD) it had been agreed to invite 11 Intergovernmental Organisations on an ad hoc,
meeting-by-meeting basis.  These organisations were:  the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU);  the
Economic Community of West African States  (ECOWAS);  the Economic Cooperation
Organisation (ECO);  the Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation;  the Islamic Development
Bank (IDB);  the Organisation of African Unity (OAU);  Organisation of the Islamic Conference
(OIC);  the South Centre;  the South Pacific Forum; the West African Economic and Monetary Union
(WAEMU);  and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).  She proposed that theseOrganisations be invited to the next formal meeting of the CTD.
4. The representative of the United States said that her delegation could go along with inviting
the 11 IGOs for the next meeting of the CTD, and added that her delegation would continue with the
practice of dealing with issues related to observership on a case by case and meeting by meeting basis.
5. The Chairperson said that the 11 IGOs would therefore be invited to the next formal session
of the CTD, and that the CTD had taken note of the remarks made by the United States.
6. It was so agreed.
7. The Chairperson recalled that at the 27th Session of the CTD, the League of Arab States had
presented a request for Observer Status to the CTD, and that consideration of the request had been
postponed to the 28th Session of the CTD.  She wished to know whether the CTD was in a position to
examine this request.
8. The representative of the United States said that she had not received any instructions from
her capital, and requested that consideration of this request be postponed to the 29th Session.WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 2
9. The representative of Egypt said that his delegation took note of the intervention made by the
United States, and expressed the hope that the CTD would be in a position, at its 29th Session, to take
a decision on the granting of observer status to the League of Arab States.
10. The Chairperson said that this was the second time that consideration of this request was
postponed, and said that the request made by the League of Arab States for Observer Status to the
CTD would be maintained on the agenda of the 29th Session of the CTD.
11. It was so agreed.
C. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT :  REPORT BY CHAIRPERSON ON SEMINAR HELD ON
7 MARCH 2000
12. The Chairperson recalled that it was agreed at the 27th Session to hold a Seminar on Special
and Differential Treatment for developing countries under the auspices of the CTD.  This was held on
Tuesday, 7 March 2000, and attracted considerable interest and useful discussions.  She had prepared
a short report on the Seminar (Job No. 1554).  A document prepared by the Secretariat titled
"Concerns regarding Special and Differential Treatment Provisions in WTO Agreements and
Decisions" (WT/COMTD/W/66, 16 February 2000) had also been made available for the Seminar.
13. The Chairperson underlined the fact that the Seminar had been well attended throughout the
day, which bore witness to the interest of Members in the subject, and also to the quality of the
presentations made by the various experts who had been invited to participate in the six sessions of
the Seminar.  She thanked the Deputy Director-General, Mr. A. Ouedraogo, for his intervention on
behalf of the Director-General at the start and the close of the seminar.  She said that seminars like the
one just held provided the occasion to hold a discussion that was of a less formal nature than in theCTD, but which had as its aim to support work undertaken in the context of the CTD.  In her view, the
Seminar on Special and Differential Treatment had perfectly fulfilled that function, whilst adding that
her only regret was that time-constraint had limited the degree of interaction possible.
14. The Chairperson said her report followed the same  structure as that of the Seminar, in that it
was divided into six sections.  The first section was devoted to a historical overview of special anddifferential treatment; the second section dealt with the GSP; the third section covered technical
cooperation; the fourth was devoted to the implementation of provisions relating to special and
differential treatment; the fifth dealt with the li nks between special and differential treatment and
economic reforms; while the final section considered the future of special and differential treatment.
She also informed Members that the Deputy Director-General had requested that his closing remarks
be distributed to members of the CTD.  She added that Mr. Ouedraogo, on mission in Addis-Ababa,
had requested that she convey his regrets at not being present.
15. The Chairperson invited the Director of the Development Division to present the Secretariat
document, WT/COMTD/W/66.
16. The Director of the Development Division said that the document had been prepared in
response to a request made by the CTD for information on special and differential treatment and
difficulties experienced by Members in implementing these provisions.  The aim of the document wasto identify concrete concerns that had been raised by developing countries regarding the
implementation of WTO Agreements.  The document was based on two elements;  first, a
questionnaire completed by Members, and secondly, on the basis of information available in the
Secretariat.  The document was divided into two parts.  First, there was a compilation of responses, of
which there were very few, made by Members.  Direct replies had been given by six Members, whiletwo others referred to communications they had ma de either to the CTD or to the General Council,WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 3
and the main conclusions of these communications were reflected in the Note.  Second, there was a
compilation of statements and communications made by Members in different WTO Bodies on
special and differential treatment, with a particular focus on implementation.  The second part of the
document attempted to summarise, agreement-by-agreement, the concerns that had been raised in
various WTO Bodies regarding the implementation of provisions for special and differentialtreatment.
17. The Chairperson opened the floor for discussions.
18. The representative of Japan said that the various views expressed by Members, especially
from developing countries, in the Seminar on Special and Differential Treatment, should contribute to
and be taken into account in future discussions on the topic in the WTO.  Regarding the improvement
of special and differential treatment, she said that the document WT/COMTD/W/66 provided a
classification of provisions for special and differential treatment into five different categories, and thatJapan was of the view that a review of these provisions, possibly for their improvement, needed to be
undertaken on a case-by-case basis.  She recalled that the CTD had drawn up a questionnaire on the
implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment in 1998, and said that the
information contained in responses to this was an essential basis for the discussion of the
improvement of provisions for special and different ial treatment in the future.  Her delegation urged
those Members who had not yet responded to the questionnaire to do so promptly.
19. The representative of Bolivia underlined the importance of events such as the Seminar in
helping to increase the understanding of provisions for special and differential treatment.  Referring to
the statement made by Japan, she sought clarification as to whether the reference to a "case-by-case"
analysis of special and differential provisions was intended to mean "agreement-by-agreement".
20. The representative of Norway said that the presentation of a broad set of views on special and
differential treatment made in the Seminar was very  useful.  With regard to the Secretariat document,
WT/COMTD/W/66, on the difficulties Members might have experienced in the implementation of
special and differential treatment, his delegation reiterated that the usefulness of the document
suffered from the fact that only a small number of Members had replied to the questionnaire.  Hereferred to paragraph 3 of the document, recalling that a number of proposals relating to special and
differential treatment had been submitted in the Seattle preparatory process.  He said a comprehensive
discussion of these proposals, along with ot her views, comments and concerns expressed by
developing countries would be useful.
21. The representative of Switzerland said a number of political statements had been made in the
Seminar, pointing to the sensitivity of special and differential treatment and the importance of such
provisions in the functioning of the WTO.  He said that the priority was now to de-politicise andrationally analyse the topic, as was done in the Secretariat document, and to analyse and focus on
those provisions for special and differential treatment which held out the promise of strengthening the
integration of targeted WTO Members into the multilateral trading system.  He said that many would
probably agree that it was not the goal of special and differential treatment to set aside WTO rules for
most of its Members.  It was necessary to recognise that there were problems which lay beyond thereach of special and differential treatment and which needed to be addressed by means other than the
use of special and differential treatment.  What was needed now was an efficient structure that could
deal with special and differential treatment without being side-tracked by political statements and
political counter-statements.
22. The representative of the European Commun ities said that the WT/COMTD/W/66 document
was a useful stock-taking exercise.  She said the Seminar on Special and Differential Treatment was
of great value, adding that special and differential treatment was a very important component of the
multilateral trading system, and that it was timely to ask questions about its future role in theWT/COMTD/M/28
Page 4
multilateral trading system.  Her delegation welcomed the presence of academics and other specialists
as this had lifted the debate from short-term concerns to long-term systemic issues.  She highlighted
two inter-linked questions, namely, the value of preferential access as a form of special and
differential treatment, and, second, the role of technical assistance, and pointed to the
complementarity of these two forms of special and differential treatment.  Technical assistance was anintegral part of special and differential treatment, and this was reflected in the fact that a number of
specific agreements referred to the delivery of techni cal assistance.  She said that there was little value
in establishing priorities between different types of special and differential treatment, and that it
seemed clear from the debate that different developing countries would take advantage of different
types of special and differential treatment, dependi ng on their level of development, the composition
of their exports, and so on.  The conclusion was that while all forms of special and differential
treatment were important, they could not be expected to have the same impact or work in the sameway for every single country.  She said that another concept which had arisen from the discussions
held in the Seminar was the degree of differentiation between developing countries.  While the
creation of new categories would create more problems than it would solve, it was necessary to take
into account the fact that differences existed and, therefore, without formalising different categories,
to consider each country on its own merits, as was done with needs assessments in the IntegratedFramework (IF) and in the case of technical assistance for implementation.  She recalled the approach
the EC had put forward for capacity-building,  namely that capacity-building should be made
operational through, for example, a menu approach when new obligations were involved, and through
a step-by-step approach.  Finally, if it were true that all forms of special and differential treatment
were available and differentiation was an element to take into account, the question arose as towhether this needed to be taken as a "still-life feature".  As had been pointed out in the seminar by the
representative of the EC, the objective of special and differential treatment was to further the
integration of Members into the trading system, and, hence, if special and differential treatment was to
be beneficial, it needed to be set within a time- limited period, so that one did not end up with a
two-tier system of rules.
23. The representative of India said that the Secretariat document WT/COMTD/W/66 was a
useful input into discussions relating to special and differential treatment.  He noted the concerns that
had been stated about the lack of response to the questionnaires, and recalled that, at the time the
questionnaire was circulated, many developing countries had been involved in the process of putting
forward their views on a whole range of implementation issues in the General Council preparatory
process for Seattle.  He said it would be useful to take account of the ideas that had been put forward
in the preparatory process in the CTD's discussion on special and differential treatment.  He said thatthe Seminar on Special and Differential Treatment had been of great benefit, primarily because
discussions had not been solely theoretical but had also had a practical focus.  Referring to the
comments made the EC on technical assistance and differentiation, he said that while nobody in the
Seminar had questioned the role of technical assistance in building capacity, many had stated that
technical assistance activities had to be carried out in parallel, and not as a substitute, to otherresponses to problems that developing countries had been facing in the implementation of WTO
Agreements.  Regarding the issue of differentiation and adopting a case-by-case approach, he said that
while this was possibly valid  in the context of bilateral technical assistance, it could not be
incorporated into the whole gamut of special and di fferential treatment, as provisions for special and
differential treatment had been accepted as universal, and it had been clearly stated that they needed toremain so.  He said that the Seminar had helped to focus on the three most important points pertaining
to special and differential treatment provisions, na mely their applicability, their enforceability and
their utility.  Finally, he said that it was necessary to keep the issue of special and differential
treatment on the agenda for the next meeting of the CTD, in order to build upon the work carried out
in the Seminar, and to provide inputs into the broader work on implementation that was ongoing inthe WTO.WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 5
24. The representative of Egypt said that the Secretariat document WT/COMTD/W/66 showed
that the paper made available by Egypt in response to the questionnaire had been used
(WT/COMTD/W/49), and his delegation was of the view that inputs made by several other
delegations in the context of the CTD could also be used.  His delegation encouraged other countries
to provide written responses to the questionnaire.  He said that the Seminar on Special andDifferential Treatment had been the occasion for an interesting exchange of views, and that his
delegation shared the views expressed by the chairperson regarding the problem of time constraints.
He said that the sessions were too tight to allow for sufficient interaction between the floor and
panelists.  Future seminars needed to take into account these concerns. His delegation was of the view
that further reflection should be held on the views expressed and that the topic of special and
differential treatment should feature on the agenda of the next meeting.  His delegation emphasised
that the major concern regarding special and differential treatment provisions was that they hadremained "best endeavours",  which had led to an in ability to determine the full scope of benefits that
developing countries could reap from provisions for special and differential treatment.  His delegation
believed that one of the dimensions that needed to be addressed in the future was how to make special
and differential treatment provisions legally binding, and he recalled that the point had been made in
the Seminar that under these binding provisions, the advantages derived by developing countriesneeded to be negotiated so that the exact benefits from the provisions could be identified.  He said that
Egypt did not share the view that technical cooperation activities were part of special and differential
treatment, as they addressed questions of capacity building and human-resource constraints in
developing countries.
25. The representative of Bangladesh  said his delegation had benefited from the different papers
that had been submitted in the Seminar, and notably the paper prepared by Mr. Kessie.  The idea
conveyed in this paper, namely that provisions for special and differential treatment had little legal
enforceability, added an extra dimension to the debate.  He said that, from the point of view of least-
developed countries, the various elements of special and differential treatment, while in some
instances, needing further refinement, discussion and negotiation, constituted a package that stood byitself, and which was a part of international development cooperation.  He said that the least-
developed countries gave very high priority to market access and technical assistance for capacity
building.  While issues pertaining to transition times, flexibility of commitments and non-reciprocity
were discussed, the least-developed countries stood to gain most from rapid action by the international
community in the fields of market access and technical assistance.  On the issue of market access, the
granting of unrestricted, bound, duty- and quota-free access for all products originating in least-
developed countries would generate significant benefits to these countries, without causing significantlosses to the trade of other countries.  His delegation welcomed the statement made at the Seminar on
Special and Differential treatment by the EC to the effect that they would provide duty-free access for
99 per cent of all products, and urged other members to join in the effort of improving market access
conditions for least-developed countries.  Finally, regarding technical assistance for capacity-building,
Bangladesh was of the view that the IF was a central focus.  The IF represented a commitment thathad been made at the Singapore Ministerial and renewed at the Geneva Ministerial, and was intended
to address critical issues of trade-related capacity.  In the context of the IF, a number of least-
developed countries had undertaken various activities, such as the preparation of needs assessment
documentation, and in some cases the holding of Round Tables and the preparation of multi-year
programmes of technical assistance.  It was now up  to the international co mmunity to translate the
commitment undertaken in Singapore into concrete action.
26. The representative of Senegal said that his delegation shared the views expressed by the
Chairperson, in her report on the Seminar, regarding the problem of time-management.  One solution
was to reduce the number of speakers and topics discussed.  His delegation was of the view that closer
attention needed to be given to the selection of panelists, adding that the decision to simultaneouslyselect Messrs. Benjelloun-Touimi, Narayanan, Abbot and Akram  was – with all due respect to them -
perhaps not the best option.  On the other hand, his delegation noted with satisfaction the presence of,WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 6
and the presentations made by, UNCTAD and the South Centre.  Regarding the use of external
speakers and panelists, his delegation was of the view  that there could be merit in drawing up a list of
resource-persons which could be updated every year .  His delegation was of the view that if the
objective of the Seminar was to provide an occasion for the expression of a number of diverse
opinions, then the Seminar had been a success.  The views expressed had also enabled his delegationto gain a better understanding of the subject of special and differential treatment, though it regretted
that it had not been possible to hear the views of those delegations which had submitted proposals in
the preparatory process for Seattle.  His delegation was of the view that though special and differential
treatment provisions were on the whole vague, im precise, and non-binding, they were of value to
developing countries.  Now that the concept of special and differential treatment had been confronted
with the reality of implementation, the task remained  to make sure the concept was made more precise
and less vague.  Much remained to be done for the views of different Members on special anddifferential treatment to converge, and his delegation did not share the point of view held by certain
Members that all Members had equal obligations, and that any difference in means should be
corrected by means of technical assistance.  His delegation was of the view that special and
differential treatment went hand in hand with differentiated responsibility.
27. The representative of Canada appreciated the approach taken by the Secretariat in document
WT/COMTD/W/66 in compiling difficulties relating to the implementation of provisions for special
and differential treatment, and encouraged the Secretariat to proceed further with this work by using
submissions made by delegations as an input to the document, and further to use as an input the steps
taken by Members to comply with provisions for special and differential treatment.  Her delegation
was of the view that special and differential treatment could be made more development-enhancing,and was interested in questions such as, "Could speci al and differential treatment be an instrument for
bringing trade to development, by opening markets, enhancing capacity and adapting rules to local
circumstances?"  Her delegation was of the view that the Seminar on Special and Differential
Treatment had provided much matter for further re flection, and shared the views expressed by the
Chairperson that time-management was an issue that needed to be addressed.
28. The representative of Cuba said the proceedings of the Seminar on Special and Differential
Treatment were a valuable input into the work of the organisation.  His delegation was of the view
that technical assistance alone was insufficient to address the structural problems faced by developing
countries, and that special and differential treatment was a fundamental pillar in international
economic relations, given the gap between developed and developing countries.  As pointed out by
the representative of Canada, special and differential treatment and enhanced market access were able
to strengthen the integration of developing countries into the world economy.  Hence, special anddifferential treatment in the WTO Agreements should be given a binding character and, for certain
provisions, clearer language and a clearer statement of objectives was required.  As stated by the
delegation of India, the recommendations made in the Seminar needed to be kept under review and be
incorporated in the executive part of the work of the WTO.
29. The representative of Jamaica said his delegation valued the fact that the Seminar was the
occasion for exposure to different ways of thinking, even though his delegation was not in agreement
with all the views expressed.  The Seminar did iden tify shortcomings and suggested approaches which
could be incorporated into future work on special and differential treatment.  He said that in future it
would be useful if the possibility were allowed for a greater degree of interaction and interchange
between participants and delegates.
30. The representative of the Philippines said his delegation had noted that a number of
suggestions had been made as to how to build on proposals made in the preparatory process for
Seattle and the deliberations of the Seminar.  His delegation attempted to be somewhat more
ambitious, in proposing the establishment of a working mechanism on special and differential
treatment, as had been mentioned by the Swiss de legation.  The purpose of this mechanism would beWT/COMTD/M/28
Page 7
to process information, establish markers, and identify  priorities.  Issues dealt within this mechanism
would be the applicability and enforceability of special and differential treatment; the differentiation
between technical assistance and special and differential treatment;  and the issue of specificity in
both technical assistance and special and differenti al treatment.  He said that the specificity of
provisions relating to least-developed countries had been recognised in the Seminar, but that it wasimportant to ensure the universality, applicability and enforceability of all special and differential
treatment provisions relating to all other developing countries.  Another issue that needed to be
tackled was the reassessment of the WTO's technical assistance strategy, in terms of the delivery of
technical assistance and its financial viability.  The range and scope of demands for technical
assistance which arose in the WTO pointed to the importance of good planning.
31. The representative of Pakistan said that the Seminar had been useful and hoped that it would
be possible to build on these views in terms of the applicability, enforceability and utility of special
and differential provisions in the WTO's future work programme.  His delegation was of the view that
the document WT/COMTD/W/66 was very useful both in terms of its compilation of responses from
delegations and its identification of difficulties.  When read in conjunction with proposals made both
in the preparatory process for Seattle and in the context of the General Council's work on
implementation, it provided the basis for the resolutio n of a number of difficulties relating to special
and differential treatment and the broader issue of implementation.  His delegation was of the view
that technical assistance on one hand, and special and differential treatment on the other were two
separate entities which should not be muddled one with the other, though they could be mutually
reinforcing.  His delegation requested that the subject of special and differential treatment be kept on
the agenda of the next meeting, as further work on the subject was required.
32. The representative of the United States said her delegation shared the views expressed by the
Chairperson and by other delegations concerning the Seminar on Special and Differential Treatment,
particularly in regard to the fact that the Seminar had been the occasion for setting out a variety of
views.  Her delegation had however expected there to have been more time for interaction from the
floor, and had come prepared to interact, but had no t done so as it did not wish to interrupt the flow of
the discussion.  Her delegation was of the view that all Members would benefit from a further
constructive examination of special and differential treatment, in particular of the specific provisions
for special and differential treatment in individual agreements, and in the context of country-specific
requirements.  Her delegation agreed with the comments made by the EC regarding the nature of
special and differential treatment, which had been corroborated by some of the presentations made in
the Seminar.  Her delegation agreed that capacity-building and technical assistance went, in some
cases, hand-in-hand with provisions for special and differential treatment.  She said that when specialand differential treatment was examined in specific agreements, it was found that special and
differential treatment was expressed in various forms, such as:  transition times; particular
circumstances when safeguard action might be taken; or in terms of technical cooperation and
capacity building.  The view of her delegation was th at capacity building itself amounted to more than
just technical assistance.  She said that some ideas floated before and during Seattle had heightenedthe understanding of capacity building.  Capacity building was not equivalent to technical assistance,
and the concept of capacity-building that shou ld be developed within the CTD included an
identification, within the context of WTO Agreements, of how capacity could be addressed in the
light of commitments undertaken by the country in question as well as in the light of requirements to
strengthen the country's integration into the multilateral trading system.  She recalled a papersubmitted by the EC, during the preparatory process for Seattle, which called for capacity building
issues to be addressed up-front.  Given that negotiations on agriculture and services were underway,
her delegation was committed to examine how capacity building could factor in an initial matter.  She
said that any provisions for special and differential  treatment needed to be viewed as mechanisms that
would help give effect to commitments that had been undertaken.WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 8
33. The representative of Panama said that the Seminar had reflected the various views held by
Members, both developed and developing.  Her de legation was of the view that, as proposed by
several other delegations, work on the subject should continue, drawing on material that was already
available.  She said that the questionnaire was still not complete, and the question needed to be asked
as to whether there were difficulties and complications with the questionnaire, and that the Secretariatshould investigate this matter.  She said that the conclusions of the Seminar showed clearly that
special and differential treatment was a factor in integration of developing countries into the
multilateral trading system, and better mechanisms were needed to ensure that special and differential
treatment yielded optimal results.  Her delegation suggested that the Secretariat should present a
strategy for better mechanisms for special and differential treatment on an agreement-by-agreement
basis, in order to enhance the integration of developing countries into the multilateral trading system.
34. She said that the Secretariat document WT/COMTD/W/66 was useful as it contained
responses to the questionnaire and a compilation of different implementation difficulties connected
with WTO Agreements.  Her delegation found that the Seminar was of great use, and it served to
highlight the value of the totality of provisions for special and differential treatment.  There were
many lessons to be pondered, stemming from contributions from the floor and from panelists, and her
delegation joined others in suggesting that the subject be kept on the agenda.  She noted that inlistening to this debate, all were agreed that a key objective of special and differential treatment was
the full integration of Members into the multilateral trading system.  It nevertheless appeared to her
delegation that, unfortunately, such a goal was receding, and that the present situation was best
characterised as a two-tier system of participation.  It was therefore the view of her delegation that
provisions for special and differential treatment n eeded to be dynamic and more responsive to the
general and specific needs of developing countries.
35. The representative of Kenya said that one shortcoming of the Seminar was the little time
allowed for interaction between the panelists and the floor.  He said that the representative of Senegal
had pointed out how this problem could be overcome.  He said that an examination of the list of
speakers showed a disproportionate number of Geneva-based speakers, especially when compared tothe number of academics and representatives of international organisations who actually had
empirical evidence to back their view points.  The whole point of a seminar was to allow the
expression of independent view-points which woul d allow Members to make decisions, and not to
have a re-run by ambassadors of country proposals with which everyone was familiar.  He said this
critique needed to be taken into account in the organisation of future seminars.  Regarding the issues
of special and differential treatment and technical assi stance, he recalled that prior to Seattle, lengthy
discussions had been held on technical cooperation, and notably the financing of technical assistancethrough the regular budget.  He said that if technical assistance was to be considered a part of special
and differential treatment, then, by extrapolation, its cost should be met by those who should provide
it.
36. The representative of Japan, responding to the question raised by the representative of
Bolivia, said that provisions for special and differen tial treatment could be classified into different
categories, as stated in document WT/COMTD/W/66.  She clarified that her reference to a
"case-by-case" approach meant that any improvements to the provisions for special and differential
treatment could be handled in the context of these categories.  She also said that within any given
agreement, there were many different categories of special and differential treatment.
37. The representative of Saint Lucia said her delegation was of the view that the need to review
provisions for special and differential treatment was significant.  She shared the views expressed by
previous speakers, and in particular concurred with the views expressed by Switzerland on the need to
de-politicise the treatment of special and differenti al treatment and to address issues in a systematic
way.  There seemed little evidence to suggest that the Uruguay Round Agreements had approached
the various provisions for special and differential treatment in a systematic way, whether these wereWT/COMTD/M/28
Page 9
transition periods, flexibility provisions, best endeavour clauses, thresholds, and so forth, and there
was insufficient evidence of logical and well reasoned  approach to the rules.  She said that for Saint
Lucia the issue of differentiated treatment was not political but real.  Saint Lucia's small size and
vulnerability, dependency on commodity exports, lack of capacity and need for retraining to promote
economic diversification, required flexible provisions for special and differential treatmentsufficiently sensitive to the needs of countries like  Saint Lucia.  Referring to Aristotle's definition of
justice, she said that the concepts of MFN and national treatment meant that equals were treated
equally, and unequals unequally.  The WTO should not shirk from the challenge of developing a
multilateral trading system that offered something fo r all its Members.  She said therefore that the
Seminar should contribute to further work and research on the subject of special and differential
treatment, with a view to achieving positive results.
38. The representative of Mauritius said his delegation shared the Chairperson's views about the
problem of time constraints which hindered the interaction between delegates and participants in the
Seminar, and requested that the Secretariat take this into account when organising seminars in the
future.  He said the ideas and views put forward in the Seminar  had furthered the understanding of the
concept of special and differential treatment.  It should be possible to build on the views expressed to
explore the applicability, enforceability and utility of special and differential provisions, keeping inmind the specificity of small and vulnerable Member countries.  His delegation was of the view that
the contributions of Members in the pre-Seattle process, as well as any other new contribution that
may be made, should be taken into account in the context of further work.  He said his delegation had
argued that any multilateral agreement could not be static, but rather that provisions should be
dynamic and responsive to changes.  His delegation agreed that the issue of special and differentialtreatment needed to be de-politicised, though it did appear that, with regard to the question of
enforceability, political will was needed to bring about a conclusion that was satisfactory to all.
39. The representative of Chile said his delegation believed that the Seminar had been a useful
exercise, and was of the view that the importance of the topics treated did not coincide with time
allocated.  He said that the subject of special and differential treatment needed further work, andsufficient time needed to be allocated to the treatment of each specific topic that had been taken up in
the Seminar.  Referring to a statement made by one delegation in the course of the Seminar, he said
that special and differential provisions for market access was an important factor in strengthening the
integration of all members into the multilateral trading system.
40. The representative of Ecuador said the Seminar had been of great value and that it was
necessary to build upon the work undertaken on that occasion.  He said that future events of this
nature needed to allow for greater interactivity between Members.  His delegation held the view thatfuture discussion on the topic should not be diluted into political declarations.  Nevertheless, it was
important to recognise that the question of special and differential treatment did have many political
connotations, as had been pointed out by other delegations which had stressed the need for political
will to make such provisions enforceable, and that one could not divorce technical analysis from
political factors.
41. The representative of Guatemala said that his delegation supported the view that, in future
events, there be a greater degree of interaction between panelists and participants, especially given
that there remained to be held two very important seminars in the context of the CTD's work
programme for the year 2000.  The Seminar had raised a number of important and relevant points for
the future work of the CTD on special and differential treatment.  He said that technical assistancewas a priority and an important instrument for development for a country like Guatemala, but was not
the only issue of importance.  Technical assistance  was a parallel mechanism to the work that needed
to be done in generating development.  He said that there existed differences in development between
all countries:  Guatemala was a small, developing country which faced constraints on its full
integration into the multilateral trading system and full participation in its benefits.  Finally, hisWT/COMTD/M/28
Page 10
delegation supported others who said that the subject of special and differential treatment should be
kept on the agenda of the CTD.
42. The representative of Argentina said that that both the proceedings of the Seminar and the
contents of document WT/COMTD/W/66 should form the basis of major work carried out by the
CTD regarding the subject of special and differential treatment.  His delegation joined others inasking for more time to be allocated for Members to interact with the ideas expressed by panelists.
His delegation was particularly struck by statements made in the seminar which showed that the areas
in which developing countries benefited from comparative advantage, particularly textiles and
agriculture, were precisely those which had met difficulties in becoming integrated into the
multilateral trading system over its 50 year history.  His delegation supported the statements made by
the delegations of Uruguay and Chile regarding the importance of market access;  and when
discussing market access, one needed to bear in mind not only access to markets in developedcountries, but also the question of competing with su bsidised exports in traditional markets.  He said
that such questions needed to be addressed when attempting to ensure that all members participated in
the international trading system under the equal conditions by which all countries were ensured access
for their products with the same rules and disciplines.
43. The representative of India, referring to comments made about the need to differentiate
between developing countries and the value of a case-by-case approach, said that when one
considered Part IV of the GATT and the origins of special and differential treatment, two things
became very clear.  First, special and differential treatment was based on non-reciprocity, that is,
developing countries were not required to pay for it;  and, second, it was non-discriminatory, which
was to say that there was to be no differentiation between developing countries, aside from thereferences to least-developed countries.  These points needed to be borne in mind when speaking
about the concept of special and differential treatment as it stood.  If there was a desire to renegotiate
special and differential treatment, that was a different matter.  He also said that the question of
whether technical assistance was part of special and differential treatment or not was perhaps
somewhat academic.  If one considered, for instance, Article 12 of the TBT Agreement, then clearlytechnical assistance did fall under special and differential treatment.  However, if this was the case,
then it was somewhat intriguing that there were calls to fund technical assistance from the core
budget, while it was simultaneously being argued that technical assistance was part of special and
differential treatment.  Funding technical assi stance from the core budget meant that all Members
would pay for technical assistance, albeit in different amounts, and this was not consonant with the
idea of special and differential treatment.
44. The representative of Guinea said that speakers at the Seminar on Special and Differential
Treatment had all pointed out that the provisions for special and differential treatment in the WTO
agreements had failed to generate any tangible benefits for developing countries, and speakers had
also noted that there was a great degree of variation in levels of development amongst developing
countries.  Her delegation was of the view that the Seminar had been useful, and that further work
should be done on the subject of special and differential treatment.
45. The representative of Thailand said that the subject of special and differential treatment
should remain on the agenda of the CTD at its next meeting.  His delegation was of the view that if all
Members paid for technical assistance, technical assistance should be treated separately from special
and differential treatment.
46. The representative of Uganda said the Seminar had provided a welcome in-depth discussion
of special and differential treatment, though the provision of added time for interaction with speakers
would have been desirable.  His delegation had note d the intervention made by the EC concerning the
extension of duty-free market access to "essentially all" products, and hoped that in subsequent
consultations it would be possible to clarify whet her this formulation would actually provide newWT/COMTD/M/28
Page 11
market access.  His delegation also noted the presentation at the Seminar made by the representative
of the IMF who had stated that the formulation "essentially all" may not amount to much.  He said
that technical assistance and capacity-building were of great importance to least-developed countries,
adding that it was the understanding of his delegatio n that funding for technical assistance through the
core budget would be additional to, and not a substitute for, voluntary contributions by donors.  Hisdelegation hoped that one would not begrudge the least-developed countries the targeting to their
specific needs of the majority of voluntary contributions.  His delegation was also of the view that
capacity-building was not a substitute for enhanced market access.
47. The representative of Norway said that his de legation disagreed with the view that technical
assistance was not a part of special and differential treatment, and referred to the relevant provisions
of the TBT Agreement which the representative of India himself had cited.  He said that the fact that
technical assistance was part of special and differential treatment did not undermine the legitimacy ofthe proposal to increase the regular budget for technical assistance, and that this should be a collective
responsibility.  His delegation was of the view that provisions for special and differential treatment
were an integral part of the provisions for all WTO Agreements, that technical assistance was part of
that package, and that Members had a collective responsibility to finance technical assistance through
the regular budget, though this was not to the exclusion of voluntary contributions.
48. The representative of Canada said it would be a mistake to be overly concerned as to whether
or not, technical assistance was part of special and differential treatment as this was largely an
artificial question.  It was, rather, more important to focus on the purpose of provisions for special and
differential treatment.  The focus of these provisions – especially those relating to transition periods –
was to provide the time necessary to develop the required capacity to undertake commitments under
different agreements, and it was in this context that  capacity building came into play.  Recalling the
comments made at the Seminar made by the representative of the World Bank, the representative of
Canada said that one could not consider special and differential treatment in isolation.  Coherence
amongst the policy and programmes of the various multilateral actors on the international scene was a
matter of importance, and that it was particularly important to ensure that the WTO, the World Bank,the regional banks and donors work together more concretely to ensure complementarity in their
policies and programmes, and to avoid contradiction and duplication.  Recalling the comments made
by the representative of India regarding the non-discriminatory nature of special and differential
treatment, he said that he was doubtful whether the fact that there were developing country Members
at various stages of development could ever be fully reflected in an organisation such as the WTO,
which was a rules-based organisation.  Such questions could be usefully addressed in other fora, such
as the World Bank, and in terms of activities undertaken by donors.  This meant that the trade agendaand the trade dimension needed to be brought to the development efforts made elsewhere, as the WTO
was not a development organisation, nor did it need to be one.  Members would do the WTO a
disservice by focusing on whether technical assistance was part of special and differential treatment.
Members negotiated whatever special and differential treatment was deemed necessary, and the focus
for ensuring that special and differential provisions were effective lay in organisations other than theWTO.
49. The representative of Ghana said that now the problems had been identified, a discussion of
their resolution was needed.  The subject needed  to be included on the agenda of the CTD in
subsequent sessions.  He said that Members should not be caught up in lengthy debates regarding
whether special and differential treatment should be legally enforceable or not, but rather that thefocus needed to be on solving the problems that had been identified in relation to special and
differential treatment.
50. The representative of the Philippines said that the delegation of Canada appeared to assert the
view that one could not a priori say that there could not be a different set of rules for developed and
developing countries, and that therefore the rules always needed to be the same.  The delegation ofWT/COMTD/M/28
Page 12
Canada had also stated that the WTO was not a development organisation but a rules-based
organisation.  The representative of the Philippines said that his delegation had serious concerns
regarding these statements, as they appeared to reflect a serious misunderstanding as to what the
WTO was all about.  The Explanatory Note to the Marrakesh Agreement did not consist of empty
words:  the Appellate Body had said that those notes gave "colour, texture, and shading" to the rulesformulated.  The Marrakesh Agreement stated that one of the objectives of the WTO Agreements was
to ensure that developing countries, particularly the least-developed, had an equitable share in the
growth of world trade.  One could not, therefore, argue a priori as to whether rules should be equal or
not equal.  The issue was to ensure that the rules,  however formulated, should be implemented;  the
objective of securing an equitable share in the growth of world trade for all Members:  if this meant
that differentiated treatment was required, then this should be put into place to ensure that the
objective was attained.  The Philippines was of the view therefore, that special and differentialtreatment was simply part of compliance with the Explanatory Note to the Marrakesh Agreement.
51. The Chairperson noted that thirty-three interventions had been made, and a number of
different points of views were expressed.  She said there was no doubt these would also be fed into
the processes going on in other WTO Bodies.  However, this process of detailed debate on special and
differential treatment was clearly not over, and the CT D would need to revert to it again in informal or
formal meetings.  In this context, she invited th e Secretariat to formulate proposals on a follow up in
practical and concrete terms, notably the proposal concerning a working mechanism on special and
differential treatment.  She suggested that furt her discussion on how to take up the subject be held
under Agenda Item E on the work programme for this year.
52. It was so agreed.
D. PARTICIPATION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN WORLD TRADE:  :
CONSIDERATION OF NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT (WT/COMTD/W/65)
53. The Chairperson called on the Secretariat to present the working paper which had been
prepared to help the CTD in its discussions.
54. The Director of the Development Division said that they had produced a new paper on the
participation of developing countries in world trade, including recent developments in trade of LDCs.
The last time that the subject-matter had been considered was in 1997, when the Secretariat had
produced a document (WT/COMTD/W/31) just befo re the outset of the Asian and the broader
financial crisis.  That document had traced developments in developing countries' merchandise trade
only in the 1990s, basically from 1991 to 1996.  In the current period of recovery from the crisis, a
broader and longer term approach had been adopted to study the matter, using three different
perspectives:  the very long-term perspective covering the entire fifty year period between 1948, thefoundation of the GATT, and 1998, the last year for which full year figures were available; the
perspective on the 1990s, from 1990 to 1998;  and, lastly, a closer look at the effects of the financial
crisis on developing countries' trade.  A separate section treated developments in the trade of
least-developed countries.  He hoped that the paper brought out reasonably clearly the differing trends
in developing countries' merchandise trade in these periods.  It did not cover trade in services.  Itshowed, for example, the uneven spread of trade development among regions and the relatively poor
performance of commodity producers in general, compared to countries that had succeeded in
transforming their economies towards the export of manufactures.  The Secretariat had also examined
the effects of the financial crisis on trade and the recovery process, which had begun, as far as they
could trace it, in the first half of 1999.  The recovery from the financial crisis was continuing andwould need to be looked at again in one year's time to see its effects on developing countries' trade
and future prospects.WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 13
55. The representative of the United States said that they had examined the paper and found it to
be a very useful contribution.  The paper clearly highlighted that the circumstances surrounding each
Member were unique.  A variety of factors affected the economic situation of Members, such as
domestic policies, natural resources, the degree of  trade liberalization, the ability to reform and
diversify, and global economic conditions.  Equally important was the paper's identification that,historically, those economies that had become the most integrated had increased market access both
regionally and globally and had made the right decisions on trade policy and other policy choices.
Another significant point in the paper was that bu ilding capacity, resolving developmental bottlenecks
and increasing investors' confidence were highly important for developing countries, in particular for
least-developed countries.  These points could also be applied to a number of other countries in the
world and were not exclusive.  It would be important for future studies to take into account other
changes in the international arena such as in job markets, manufacturing or other sectors, with a viewto identifying factors that contributed to development and could possibly help developing countries
leapfrog to a more equitable position vis-à-vis developed countries.  Electronic commerce was one
such area where significant amount of work had been done and where there was a strong interface
between trade and development, access to information technology and training, but it needed to be
better targeted.  To the extent that developing countries had access to the necessary elements, theycould leap into this particular area of trade without having to go through to traditional stages of
development.  They took note of the comments made by the representative of the Secretariat that trade
in services had not been taken into account in the study, however, it would be critical for developing
countries to see how developing countries, in addition to enhancing their existing manufacturing bases
and others, could take advantage of new sectors.
56. The representative of India said that the paper was factual and therefore not much could be
said about it as facts could not be disputed.  He hoped that more than a few delegations would
participate in the discussion.  According to the paper, in 1973 the share of international merchandise
exports of developing countries was 20 per cent and had risen to 28 per cent in 1997, over a period of
24 years.  However, developing countries had their largest share in 1948, with 33 per cent.  It wouldbe interesting to look at the reasons for the disappointing trend.  It could be argued that the aim for
developing countries was still to achieve the share of merchandise trade they had in 1948.  One reason
for the falling share was that knowledge industries and technology, which had contributed
significantly to growth in certain countries, had largely bypassed developing countries.  Secondly, the
markets in the developed countries had not been very open in precisely those areas where developing
countries had a competitive edge.  Agriculture and textiles were obvious examples, but there could be
others.  The third reason, which was picked up both by the report and the representative of the UnitedStates, was that some countries had not managed their policy options well and had not liberalized or
integrated enough.  Moreover, developing countries, ranging from China to India to LDCs had had
very different growth performances.  The question needed to be posed as to why some among
developing countries had done better than others.  There were also some external factors, which were
responsible for the poor statistics.  There had been tremendous improvement in some developingcountries but the global statistics were worrying.  His delegation found the report extremely useful.
57. The representative of Bangladesh said that the Secretariat report was very helpful.  Speaking
on behalf of LDCs and referring to paragraph 14 of  the report on trade trends of least-developed
countries, he said that they were very grateful that the Secretariat had made some very important
comments based on reliable solid statistics.  The report indicated that LDCs were by definition theweakest and the most vulnerable in their economic structures, further strengthening what LDCs had
been saying all along.  More importantly, the report said that LDCs' share of world trade had declined
continuously between 1980-97 and that they had not enjoyed upswings as had some other developing
countries.  This fact strengthened the case for differentiated treatment for LDCs.  In the same
paragraph, his delegation had expected a comment on the current situation of LDCs, in terms of theirperformance vis-à-vis WTO obligations.  He said that, speaking from the experience of Bangladesh
and other LDCs, the LDCs as a group had performed well in respect of their WTO obligations, in theWT/COMTD/M/28
Page 14
context of derogations that were afforded to the LDCs as a group.  The report would have had added
weight had this fact been taken into account.  He concluded by saying that though Bangladesh had
been given extra marks for doing comparatively well, on the whole the results were worrying.  It
would be a shame for the international community to watch some countries get marginalized and
dropped out of the scene although commitments had been made to help them on occasion.
58. The representative of Switzerland said that the representative of India had raised some very
important questions, one of which he would try to answer.  The study had taken 1948 as the base year,
which was possibly not the best year to take as global trade at the time was quite diverted or
disturbed.  The study showed the increased importance of South-South trade, which had unfortunately
been shown in the negative context of decreasing trade shares.  One could also look at the facts in a
positive way and highlight the growth potential of South-South trade.
59. The representative of the European Communities agreed with most of what had been said.
She appreciated the questions and the pertinent analysis made by India.  She also stressed the fact that
least-developed countries, by definition, were the disadvantaged.  However, she said that a positive
trend could be detected for the last 25 years.  What was interesting was the change in the composition
of international trade.  In 1974-75 oil was a major component of developing country exports, whereas
presently an increase in manufactured exports could be detected.
60. The representative of Uganda said that it was very clear from the statistics that the share of
world trade for LDCs, particularly for those in Africa, had been declining.  As highlighted in
paragraphs 7 and 63, the other problematic aspect concerning especially African LDCs was the
predominance of primary commodities as a major export item.  Another factor, mentioned in
paragraph 59, was the predominance of African exports to European Union countries, whichhighlighted the need for the waiver on the EC-ACP arrangements.  There was a trend towards
increasing African exports to Asian developing countries.  As an example of South-South
cooperation, he hoped this would be strengthened and deepened.
61. The representative of Jamaica was of the view that one of the most important statistics
provided was the one indicating growth in merchandise exports over the past fifty years, which had
increased by a factor of 69 for developing countries and by a factor of 100 for developed countries.
Over time, merchandise exports of developed countries were in fact increasing at a faster rate than
that of developing countries.  Therefore, it could only be concluded that the gap between developed
and developing countries was widening and not closing - an important conclusion to draw from the
mass of data that they had been provided with.  He thanked the Secretariat for the comprehensive and
informative document.  On the positive side, the share of manufactures in exports of developing
countries, had risen from 4 per cent to 24 per cent between 1963 and 1998.  If there was anycorrelation to be made, it was between growth in manufactures as a proportion of exports and rise in
incomes and a more successful integration into the gl obal economy.  Still it needed to be placed in the
right context.  A small number of countries including China, which was not a WTO Member as yet,
accounted for almost 70 per cent of the exports of manufactures from developing countries.  Another
positive development was the tendency towards stronger integration in terms of South-South trade.Particularly in Latin America, intra-regional trade in MERCOSUR and the Andean Community had
grown by rates as high as 26 per cent per year between 1990-97.  He did not believe that similar
figures would have been applicable to some of the other regional arrangements in Latin America and
the Caribbean, including CARICOM.  Still, it was a healthy trend, reflective of efforts to strengthen
South-South cooperation.  The data also showed positive trends in the growth of imports from
developed countries.  Market access to developing countries appeared to be quite attainable for
developed countries.  In conclusion, there were some positive trends, but despite the best efforts of all
concerned, there was in fact a widening of the gap.WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 15
62. The representative of Mauritius said that he shared the views expressed by the representatives
of India and Jamaica and also agreed with the representative of Uganda on the question related to
primary commodities.  In the case of very small states, dependent on exports of commodities or
traditional products, diversification might not be possible due to physical size and climate.  On the
other hand, these same products had helped the diversification in some countries into other sectorslike tourism and textiles, and this process had been achieved prior to the signing of the Marrakesh
Agreement.
63. The representative of Japan thanked the Secretariat for having prepared an excellent,
comprehensive note.  Her delegation paid particular attention in the note to the fact that the LDC's
share of world trade had declined from 0.9 per cent in 1980 to 0.5 per cent in 1997.  This was partly
due to their dependence on primary commodities.  Among LDCs, the gap had become larger between
those which exported manufactures and others.  Her delegation was concerned that LDCs might befurther marginalized as globalization progressed.  In this regard they recognized the importance of
various measures and assistance, including technical assistance, in favor of developing countries, in
particular LDCs.
64. The representative of Cuba said that the participation of developing countries in world trade
needed to be the centre of discussions in the CTD and that this subject was of utmost importance for
his delegation.  The objective was to see whether developing countries were actually progressing in
their participation in world trade. Unfortunately, he had received the Secretariat document just that
day and only in English, which was not very useful since his delegation worked in Spanish.  He
shared the views expressed by India, Bangladesh, and others that, as shown in Chart 1 on page 4, from
1948 and 1998, the share of developing countries in exports of manufactures had remained the same,meaning there had been no progress.  He wondered what needed to be done to ensure that this would
be changed.  Paragraph 4 stated that those countries which were successful in the diversification of
their economies were those which had gained more participation at the regional or national level.  He
wished that this matter be discussed in greater detail to be helpful for the future.  Paragraph 11 stated
that the developing countries which had been able to take advantage of liberalisation trends in the
eighties and the nineties were also those whose development had progressed rapidly.  This also
needed further discussion, but he was waiting for comments from his capital.  He agreed with the
comments made by the representative of Uganda that the matter be taken up again in the future and
supported the recommendation made by one delegation for the study to include developing countries'
participation in international trade in services, which was a very significant sector in some economies.
65. The representative of Hong Kong, China thanked the Secretariat for the good and
comprehensive paper, which would help her delegation in the consideration of the matter.  She
believed that the paper was an update on an earlier version that had been discussed earlier.  At that
point, her delegation had commented that it would be useful to analyse the effects of regional trade
agreements on the trade of developing countries.  The erosion of preferences for developing countries
due to the elimination of tariffs among parties to regional trade agreements was certainly an important
factor affecting the trade of developing countries.  She took note of the explanation by therepresentative of the Secretariat that the focus of the update was more on the Asian financial crisis.
They hoped that their comments would be taken into account when the paper was updated again in the
future.
66. The representative of Kenya said that his observations would focus on Africa's performance
in international trade.  First, he noticed that Western Europe continued to be a major market for
African exports, even if the share of exports going there had declined.  He hoped that the ratification
of the African Growth and Opportunity Act in the United States would help provide markets for
African exports.  Second, he noted some possible inconsistency between paragraphs 12 and 59,
regarding the effects of the financial crisis on developing countries' trade.  On the one hand, it was
said that Africa and the Middle East were particularly affected by the decline in commodity prices.WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 16
On the other hand, there was an increase in the share of African exports going to Asia.  He was of the
view that this could possibly be attributed to African  exports to countries that were not affected by the
crisis, notably India and China.  Thirdly, there was an increase in intra-African trade, which might be
attributed to enhanced efforts on regional integration arrangements.  He noted that the statistics were
not coming out clearly because of the exclusion of South Africa, both on the import and export side.South Africa was a dominant and major partner in Africa both in terms of investment and trade.  More
accurate figures could be attained by including South Africa in African trade.  Finally, regarding the
predominance of primary commodities in African exports, as noted by the Ambassador of Uganda, he
was not sure whether it could be explained through weak supply-side capacity or tariff escalation and
tariff peaks.
67. The observer from the Organisation of African Unity said that his Organisation also
monitored trade and other economic data on Africa.  The results reported in the paper were fully
consistent with what they had been observing, namely, the declining volume and value of African
exports, the absence of change in the composition and destination of African exports and the
dependence on commodities.  What was not captured in the paper - and was perhaps unnecessary
given the focus of the paper - was that they were not seeing much of a reversal under the improved
policy climate in the nineties.  In response to ec onomic reforms, positive growth rates had been seen
in African economies, but the trade patterns had not been reversed.  These observations again
highlighted the urgent need for greater coherence in the policies of external partners towards Africa in
dealing with issues such as the lack of investment response or the supply and capacity constraints.
68. The representative of Senegal said that he had not thus far fully examined the document,
which they had received in English only.  Referring to the question raised by India, he wondered why
despite efforts, the benefits from liberalization were so small.  There needed to be benefits for all
Members.  The representative of India was right in asking why some had gained more while efforts in
the WTO were shared.  These questions were even more pertinent since many countries were
marginalized, limiting their capacities to implem ent the WTO Agreements let alone assume new
obligations.  There was a problem of credibility in the WTO, accompanying all the problems raised byIndia.  Therefore, the CTD needed to continue consideration of the document at the next meeting.
69. The representative of Australia thanked the Secretariat for the interesting analysis in
particular for identifying significant factors and trends.  Those economies which had diversified had
gained a greater share of international trade, while most economies that had remained tied to exports
of raw materials and agricultural products had generally lagged behind.  It was notable that the
financial crisis had a proportionately greater effect  on the trade among developing countries than on
the trade between developing and developed countries.  This highlighted the interdependence betweendeveloping countries and the benefits they could accrue through joint initiative and action.  They
welcomed further activity by the Secretariat to identify important lessons and/or best practices.
70. The Director of the Development Division  thanked all delegations for their comments.  He
apologised to the francophone and hispanophone Members for the lack of translated documents.
Referring to the comment made by the representative of Switzerland regarding South-South trade, hesaid that although it might not have been emphasized in the introduction, the sections on the structure
of developing countries' trade and on regional developments included a lot of information on the
different patterns and trends of South-South trade in Asia, Latin America and Africa.  These could of
course be analyzed more thoroughly next time.  Referring to the comment made by the representative
of Kenya about the apparent contradiction between paragraphs 12 and 59, he said that he did not see acontradiction.  Paragraph 59 largely covered the expanding share of African exports to developing
Asia in the period before the financial crisis, that is, up until 1997.  The main effect of the financial
crisis on Africa seemed to have been the decline in commodity prices, which had affected Africa's
trade in a negative fashion.WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 17
71. The Chairperson was of the view that, after the discussion, the CTD understood better the
recent evolution in the participation of developing countries in world trade.  It was clear from the
comments and questions that this issue needed to  remain under discussion in the CTD.  It would be
wise to let some time pass before repeating the statistical analysis and revert to the question in the
following year on the basis of updated data.  Should there be important and rapid developments, itwas always possible to revert to the matter sooner.
72. It was so agreed.
E. WORK PROGRAMME OF THE CTD FOR 2000
73. The Chairperson said that Members had before them for their consideration a Secretariat
paper entitled Proposed CTD Work Programme for 2000 (Job No. 1003, 17 February 2000) and a
Communication From Zambia:  Proposed Work Programme for the Year 2000 (WT/COMTD/W/67,
22 February).  She recalled that the CTD had a number of formal and informal discussions on its work
programme over the preceeding year.  The most recent discussion had taken place in its informal
session on 21 January 2000, on the basis of an informal note by the Secretariat, entitled "Illustrative
List of Elements for a Possible Work Programme".  This note attempted to consolidate under four
headings various matters previously raised by Members and which fell within the scope of theexisting terms of reference of the Committee.  These four broad headings were: special and
differential treatment; technical co-operation; participation of developing countries in the multilateral
trading system; and the experience of the developing countries with their own implementation and the
implementation by their partners of the WTO Agreements.  During discussions on the Illustrative List,
Members indicated that the list was relatively comprehensive and ambitious, and it would benecessary to establish work priorities for 2000, without necessarily excluding any item of interest to
Members.  She said that in preparing the draft wo rk programme, account was taken of items to which
the Committee was already committed for 2000 or for which work has been requested.
74. The Chairperson recalled that, beyond matters on the agenda of the 28
th session, the CTD was
already committed to an evaluation of the Technical Assistance programmes of the Secretariat.  Thisprocess had already begun through the preparation of two reports, one of a more quantitative nature
similar to last year, summarizing the activities that had taken place in 1999 and that were envisaged
for 2000, and a second report identifying an approach which would permit the evaluation of technical
cooperation, including training, in a more qualitative manner, to be presented at the same time.  It was
envisaged that these two reports would be discussed at the 29
th Session of the CTD proposed for the
week beginning 26 June 2000.  It was also expected that the report on the review of the Integrated
Framework for Trade-related Technical Assistance to Least-developed Countries would be presentedto the Sub-Committee on the Least-developed Countries and the report on consideration in the
Sub-committee would then be referred to the CTD later in the year, possibly at the 30
th Session, for
which the proposed date is 27 October 2000.
75. The Chairperson said that prior to the June meet ing of the CTD, it may also be useful to have
a seminar to discuss the problems of small economies, which was also on the Illustrative List.Considerable work had been done on this i ssue by the Commonwealth Secretariat and the
World Bank, and by June it may be opportune to discuss the trade aspects of the issue.  Such a
seminar could be organized under the auspices of the CTD during the week of 26 June and a report
provided for discussion in the CTD at its 29
th Session.  On the basis of discussions in the CTD and
other bodies of the WTO, there also appeared to be considerable interest in the problems related toimplementation of the WTO Agreements.  If it wa s thought useful, it would also be possible to
organize a seminar on this topic in the second half of 2000, to be followed by a report to the
30
th Session of the CTD where the issue could be formally discussed.  The idea was enter into specific
details of implementation in the whole range of areas and discuss possible solutions to the difficultiesWT/COMTD/M/28
Page 18
identified.  Such a seminar was tentatively programmed for 23 October 2000.  If desired, this could
also be extended to cover other aspects of the participation of developing countries in world trade, and
even capacity building, as indicated in the Illustrative List.  The CTD also needed to adopt the annual
report on its activities at the final formal meeting of the year.  Prior to that meeting, the draft report
might be discussed in an informal meeting which was proposed for 24 October 2000, just prior to theformal meeting.  Although it was not formally part of the work of the CTD, the Director-General
wished to hold another "Geneva Week" for non-resident Members in order to brief them on
developments in the WTO and to facilitate their integration in the multilateral system.  This was
tentatively programmed for 16-20 October 2000, so that non-residents who so wish would be able to
stay over for the meetings of the CTD and the implementation seminar in the week of
23 October 2000.  (The arrangements for Geneva Week were be carried out by the staff of the
Development Division and the Technical Co-operation Division).  Other items on the Illustrative Listcould be addressed under Other Business, as requir ed by dictates of urgency, or in the work
programme for subsequent periods.
76. The Chairperson suggested that for the consideration of this item, the meeting move into
informal mode to allow for a frank exchange of views off the record.  On the basis of discussions, the
meeting could ask the Secretariat to make some revisions to the draft programme during the day sothat a programme could be adopted later in the day, if possible.  However, before switching to
informal mode, the Chairperson opened the floor to the representative of Zambia to introduce his
paper.
77. The representative of Zambia recalled that under the previous agenda item, Members had
discussed special and differential treatment, and its development or impact if used effectively.  The
Secretariat Report on the Participation of Developing Countries in International Trade had referred to
the importance of building trade-related capacity as a key for improved trade, in particular for LDCs,
and Members had expressed sympathy with the c ondition of the Developing Countries and LDCs.
The question was, therefore, how to turn this sympathy into concrete and tangible results, for these
countries to improve, qualitatively and quantitatively, their trading prospects and living conditions.He said that the proposal submitted by Zambia took Members one step from statements to suggested
concrete measures.  The essence of the Zambian proposal was to kick start the process of
implementation of provisions related to technology transfer to developing countries (and particularly
LDCs), which all members recognised to be at the heart of the process of integration though
sustainable competitive advantage.  He said that in order to compete effectively, products from
developing countries needed technological conten t.  However, technology transfer alone would not
solve problems in this regard, and needed to be harmonised with capacity-building measures.  He saidthat issues of special and differential treatment discussed  in the seminar covered a broad spectrum of
issues including technology transfer, and appeared in all aspects of WTO work.  For all these reasons,
Zambia wished to put technology transfer at the centre of WTO activities.  The proposal envisaged
that the WTO would need partner organisations such as those listed in the document that had been
distributed.  The proposal also assumed that implementation required a series of steps, such as:understanding what motivated technology owners to transfer technology; approaches to transfer of
technology; incentives, and so forth.  Implementation was not a one-off action, and each of the
organisations listed could make a positive contribution and together, these organisations could create
and deliver a mechanism linking technology owners to private sector owners.  As to the procedure by
which the proposal was to be handled, the representative of Zambia said that the CTD was anappropriate forum, particularly with a view to prov iding the political impetus.  However, the ultimate
and most appropriate forum was perhaps the TRIPs Council, and he informed Members that the same
communication was being forwarded – with  minor changes – to the TRIPs Council.
78. The Chairperson thanked the representative of  Zambia, and called the meeting to informal
mode.WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 19
79. Following the discussion held in informal mode the Chairperson called the meeting back to
formal mode and proposed that the CTD adopt draft work programme with the modifications that had
been suggested in the informal session.
80. The representative of the United States said her delegation had reviewed the work plan
submitted to January to Members, and said that her delegation's main concern was that the programme
not be overloaded.  The Secretariat had limited resources, and it was necessary to ensure that quality
work was carried out in a timely fashion.  In order to ensure that the work programme and the work
products resulting there from were widely applicable and relevant to the discussions on-going in the
organisation more broadly.  For instance, her delegation was of the view that if there were issues
raised concerning specific categories of developing countries, that similar consideration be given to
other types of developing countries and given similar attention in the CTD as proposals raised by
those concerned.  On the issue of electronic commerce, the work plan was generated by the GeneralCouncil, which had yet to respond to the reports submitted by the CTD and other bodies.  While her
delegation supported continued work on electronic commerce in the CTD, Members needed to be
sensitive to proposals emanating from the General C ouncil on this subject, in order to ensure that
work that took place in the CTD facilitated the organisation of the work programme on electronic
commerce, to be undertaken in May.  Regarding the proposed schedule of seminars, her delegationneeded to refer this matter to its capital, especia lly in relation to items scheduled from June onwards,
and she hoped that feedback from capital would come expeditiously.  Her delegation could not thus in
the immediate go along with the schedule as proposed for the various seminars, though her delegation
had no problem in principle with the seminars as an approach to deal with issues listed in the work
programme.  Her delegation could go along with the work programme, provided that various issueswere managed in accordance with the resources of the Secretariat and with their the attention that they
merited.  The representative of the United States did not wish a return of the situation which had
occurred with the Seminar on Special and Differential Treatment, where her hands had been tied
whilst awaiting feedback from her capital, and her aim was to forward the proposed work programme
to her capital to obtain feedback both regarding the dates and the contents of the various seminars.
81. The Chairperson invited the Director of the Development Division to provide clarification as
to dates of the 30th Session.
82.  The Director of the Development Division addressed the questions raised by some
delegations regarding the timing of the 30th Session and other events taking place in October such as
Geneva Week.  He noted that October was a busy month, because it included meetings of Trade and
Development Board of the UNCTAD, the final WTO General Council in which annual reports were
to be delivered, and so forth.  He therefore requested that the date of 27 October 2000 for the30
th Session be treated as indicative, whilst adding that the dates were reasonably accurate.  He added
that good note had been taken of the request made by Gabon regarding the Social Summit.
83. The Chairperson said that the discussions held had generated progress, even though not all the
details had been fixed.  She requested that the CTD accept and take note of the dates that had been put
forward for the 29th and 30th sessions of the CTD, respectively 29 June and 27 October 2000.
Regarding the other aspects of the work programme, the Secretariat would take into account the
comments that had been made by Members.  Regarding the seminars, she requested that the one
delegation awaiting instructions from its capital make every effort to obtain direction from its capital
in order to allow the CTD to fix the dates of the seminars by the end of the month of March 2000, and
to allow the CTD to adopt its work programme for the year 2000 in its entirety.
84. It was so agreed.WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 20
F. GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES :  NOTIFICATION BY NORWAY
85. The Chairperson said that the notification by Norway was contained in document
WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.1, and invited the represen tative of Norway to introduce the item
86. The representative of Norway said that Norway had notified its GSP scheme on
29 August 1995, and its notification was contai ned in WT/COMTD/N/6, which contained all
regulations related to the Norwegian GSP scheme, including Rules of Origin provisions, product
coverage lists and a country list.  The present notification contained in WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.1 only
contained new regulations concerning the origin of goods, and neither country lists nor product
coverage was included.  He referred Members to paragraph 59(c) of the Document
WT/COMTD/W/66, discussed under agenda item C,  which contained a brief summary of Norway's
GSP scheme, and which showed that Norway had a fairly liberal GSP scheme.  He added that the
Norwegian Parliament recently made some additional improvements to the GSP scheme which werenot reflected in the present notification, as the modification had been made subsequent to the issue of
the present notification in December 1999.  The amendments were all improvements, and would be
reflected in a further addendum submitted to the CTD.  The first of these improvements was a
substantial reduction in exceptions in product areas such as textiles, clothing and footwear.  Second,
country specific exceptions relating to Hong Kong, China;  Macao, China;  and South Korea had beenlifted.  The third improvement was with regard to  countries eligible for GSP treatment, with the
re-inclusion of Iran, which had been suspended for some years.  The representative of Norway said
that the second addendum to WT/COMTD/N/6 which would be circulated would cover all regulations
related to the Norwegian GSP scheme, incl uding product coverage and country lists.
87. The representative of the Philippines expressed the appreciation of the Philippines to Norway
in respect of its implementation of preferential market access through the GSP.  He sought
clarification  as to the definition  of "GSP Country" as referred to in Paragraph 12 of Chapter 1, which
said that a GSP country " refered to those beneficiary developing countries and territories, including at
any given time, the list of countries published by the Norwegian customs authorities".  He wished to
know whether all WTO developing countries were automatically included in the list, and if not, whatcriteria were used for inclusion or exclusion.
88. The representative of Mexico thanked the delegation of Norway for its notification.  He said
that it was proper for all Members having a GSP scheme to inform the CTD about their respective
GSP systems and modifications to it.  In order to ensure coherence and consistency it would be
necessary to examine at the start of each year what changes had been made to GSP schemes.  He
requested that a copy of the notification by Norway be sent to the UNCTAD.
89. The representative of Sri Lanka thanked the delegation of Norway for its notifications, and
placed on record the appreciation of her delegation to the transparency this exercise generated.  Her
delegation had some preliminary questions. She recalled the Norwegian Scheme notified in 1995 did
not recognise the principle of donor-country content rule, while Chapter 2 Section 2, appeared to
identify the donor-country content rule.  Further elaboration was required as to how the rule was to be
effected, as it was known that other countries maintained a restricted list when applying the donor-country content rule.  Regarding Section 4 which dealt with sufficiently worked or processed
products, she said that there appeared to be a typographical error in the 2
nd sentence of the
3rd paragraph which refered to a value of 5 percent, which was a very low level of value, whereas it
should probably have read 35 or 50 percent.  Regarding products not wholly obtained, her delegation
had some concerns about rigidities in rules of origin, especially with regard to  chapters 50 to 63where many developing countries had comparative advantage.  Regarding Section 6 on regional
cumulation of origin, she requested clarification as to what regional groupings had been recognised
under this section.  On Section 11 regarding derogations, her delegation wished to flag the fact thatWT/COMTD/M/28
Page 21
waiving rules of origin of for certain groups of countries, while having some justification, could also
lead to practices such as anti-circumvention.
90. The representative of Norway responded to th e question raised by the Philippines regarding
criteria for inclusion in or exclusion from the list of beneficiary countries, and said that with very few
exceptions, all developing countries and LDCs were on the list, regardless of their Membership statuswith the WTO.  There were certain exceptions – such as Iran which, as he had stated earlier, had just
been re-instated to the list – but these were limite d to just one or two.  Regarding the question raised
by Mexico, he said that the present notification had also been submitted to the UNCTAD.  With
regard to the queries from Sri Lanka, he said that he had taken good note of the various queries raised
and said he would come back to them later.
91. The CTD took note of the notification.
G. TREATY ON THE WEST AFRICAN ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION (WAEMU):
NOTIFICATION FROM SENEGAL
92. The Chairperson said that the notification was contained in document WT/COMTD/N/11 and
the full text of the treaty was in document WT/COMTD/23, and invited the  representative of Senegal
to introduce the item.
93. The representative of Senegal said that the WAEMU Council had instructed him to introduce
on its behalf the treaty document to the WTO.  His  presentation highlighted the following points,
which were elaborated in detail in the treaty  document circulated to members; namely the
composition of the WAEMU; the institutional structure of the WAEMU; the liberalisation programme
of intra-WAEMU trade; the convergence programme for the common external tariff; conformity withWTO Agreements; and the willingness of the WAEMU to be open.
94. The CTD took note of the notification.
H. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
95. The Chairperson recalled that under the rules of the COMTD, the chairmanship of the CTD
changed at the end of the first formal meeting each year.  She said that after consultations, the General
Council has nominated Ambassador Ransford Smith of Jamaica for the position, and proposed that the
CTD elect Ambassador Smith by acclamation.
96. It was so agreed
97. Ambassador Ransford Smith conveyed his appreciation, that of his delegation and everyone
else, of the work conducted by  the outgoing Chairperson.  He said that he deeply valued the trust and
confidence placed in him by Members, adding that he did not take these for granted and that he wouldendeavour to justify it all times.  He said that development was a challenge that needed to be met
collectively and collaboratively, within a context of shared goals and objectives.  He noted the
proposed work programme of the CTD reflected the need to give priority to critical issues such as
technical assistance and implementation, and the need to enhance development possibilities and
participation in world trade by responding to particular problems of developing countries.  Heexpressed his hope that it would be possible to agree on the work programme for the CTD as soon as
possible.  He pledged to work with Members in  both formal and informal sessions to reduce
differences where these existed and to strengthen common approaches in important matters.WT/COMTD/M/28
Page 22
98. The representative of the United States expressed the appreciation of her delegation to the
outgoing Chairperson, saying that her management of the CTD had been effective and graceful, and
that her delegation looked forward to seeing her in other leadership roles, whether in the WTO or
elsewhere.  Her delegation welcomed the leadership of Ambassador Smith and looked forward to
working with him.
99. The representative of Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of GRULAC, expressed appreciation for
the work carried out by the Chairperson during her tenure over a very difficult year.  She welcomed
Ambassador Smith to the Chair, expressing her pleasure at seeing a member of her region accede to
that office.
100. The representative of Mauritius, speaking on behalf of the Africa Group, welcomed
Ambassador Smith to the chair.  He congratulated the outgoing Chairperson on her management of
the work of the CTD.
101. The representative of Saint Lucia thanked the outgoing Chairperson for her work, and
welcomed ambassador Smith to the chair, assuring him of the fullest cooperation of Saint Lucia and
other CARICOM countries, in keeping with their interests.
I. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON LEAST-D EVELOPED COUNTRIES
102. The Chairperson recalled that under the ru les of the WTO the chairmanship of the
Sub-committee on Least-Developed Countries normally ch anged at the end of the first formal meeting
each year.  However, after consultations, it appeared that Members were keen to see
Ambassador Benedikt Jonssòn of Iceland continue as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on
Least-Developed Countries.  The Chairperson proposed that Ambassador Jonsson be elected aChairman of the Sub-Committee on Least-Developed Countries.
103. It was so agreed.
104. Ambassador Jonsson joined others in thanking the outgoing Chairperson for her work with
the CTD, and welcomed Ambassador Smith to the Chair of the CTD.  He said he was both humbled
and grateful for the trust placed in him in by Members electing him to the chair of theSub-Committee.  He said that the numerous challenges ahead needed to be addressed by identifying
priorities and putting forward appropriate solutions, and added that one such challenge lay improving
the operation of the Integrated Framework.
J. O
THER BUSINESS
105. The Chairperson recalled that the next session of the CTD would be held on 28 June 2000.
106. The Chairperson expressed her profound thanks to the Membership for having shown her
their confidence by appointing her as Chairperson of the CTD.  She recalled the activities carried out
under her tenure that were recorded in the report submitted to the General Council on
4 November 1999:  Special and differential treatment; concerns and problems of small economies; the
development dimension of trade facilitation; the development dimension of electronic commerce;
technical cooperation and training; the drafting of a waiver covering tariff preferences accorded to
LDCs by developing countries; the contribution of the CTD to the Seattle Ministerial Conference andfuture work of the CTD.  The CTD had also welcomed a number of invited speakers who shared the
knowledge of their institutions in matters related to trade and development.  In parallel with these
activities, close attention had been given to the work of the Sub-Committee on LDCs, whose work
mainly consisted of the implementation of the Integrated Framework for trade-related technicalWT/COMTD/M/28
Page 23
assistance.  The CTD's work had enabled members to make progress in a difficult context.  The
Chairperson concluded by thanking the Secretariat, as well the interpreters and technicians who had
been involved in the work of the CTD over the preceeding year.
__________