. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/197
21 July 2000
(00-3018)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS FOR SPECIAL
AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Statement by India at the Meeting of 21-22 June 2000
1. First of all, let me convey our delegation's appreciation to the Secretariat for preparing a
document on the issue of special and differential tr eatment, summarizing the concerns raised in the
Committee meetings.  We note that the various concerns articulated by India at these meetings are
also reflected in this document.  We also want to fully associate ourselves with the statement made by
our friend from the Egyptian delegation.  As pointed out by Egypt, special and differential treatment
for the developing countries is one of the pillars of the various Agreements under the WTO and these
have been enshrined with a view to take into account the different levels of development and also toallow them to reach higher levels.  Hence we feel that special and differential the treatment provisions
should be given the same legal status as other WTO provisions to make it more meaningful.  I would
now briefly refer to the issues raised by India and other developing countries at earlier meetings and
as reflected in the Secretariat document.
2. First, we would like to point out that the provisions on technical assistance and cooperation
have mainly remained as best endeavour clauses without being fully operationalized.  As noted in
paragraph 4 of the Secretariat document, we feel that either Article 10 of the Agreement should be
made mandatory and/or that specific guidelines should be developed since this Article had not been
widely implemented.  Second, as noted in paragraph 4 of the same document, we have raised concerns
that although Article 10.1 provided that the special needs of developing countries shall  be taken into
account in the preparation and application of SPS measures, this had rarely been done.  With a view to
giving meaning to this provision, it was proposed by India that if an SPS measure created a problemfor more than one developing country, then it should be withdrawn.  Further, it was also suggested by
India that if an SPS measure created problems for several developing countries but could not be
withdrawn, the country adopting the measure should reconsider the same and provide the necessary
technical assistance to enable developing countries to adapt.  In India's view, SPS measures were
often invoked in a discriminatory manner to the detr iment of international trade, particularly trade
originating from developing and least-developed co untries.  Developing country constraints such as
lack of adequate infrastructure, technology, finance and skilled manpower led to difficulties in
complying with trading partners' SPS measures.  This had resulted in restricted market access,
especially since countries often found it difficult to adjust to frequently changing SPS measures.
3. A case in point here is the imposition of unnecessary requirements for marine products.  The
cost of adjustment for the Indian industry to su ch requirements from an importing country amounted
to more than US$25 million, without any assistance from the country concerned.  I may also point out
here that this measure had also resulted in unemployment in those units who could not adapt to these
requirements.
4. Second, as pointed out in paragraph 7 of the document under reference, there was little
information regarding whether Members were, in fact providing longer time frames for compliance on
products of interest to developing countries.  India,  along with others, had proposed in this regard that
Article 10.2 should be modified to include a mandatory  period of at least 12 months between the dateG/SPS/GEN/197
Page 2
of notification and the entry into force of the SPS measures on products from developing countries.
Third, as noted in paragraph 8 of the same document, India had proposed extension of the transition
period during which the developing and least-developed countries could delay the implementation of
the Agreement.  In our view, this would allow developing country Members to gradually bring their
standards into conformity with international st andards, while also giving them time to forge
equivalence agreements with developed country Members.
5. Lastly, on the issue of participation of developing countries, as noted in paragraph 9 of the
Secretariat document, we feel the participation of developing countries in international standard-
setting bodies remained inadequate, and as a result, international standards were often adopted
without taking into account their problems and constraints.  It was also noted that active participation
in the deliberations of these bodies often required adequate institutional infrastructure, human and
financial resources and effective follow-up capabilities.  Keeping in view the importance ofinternational standards in this area, India desired that ways and means should be found to make
participation by the developing and least-developed countries more effective. As noted in
paragraph 11 of the Secretariat document, India and others would suggest that standards should only
be recognized by the Agreement if the participation of countries from different geographical areas and
levels of development had been ensured in their formulation and if the specific conditions prevailingin developing countries had been taken into account.
6. In conclusion, we hope that the Committee will continue to reflect on the pertinent issues of
concern/importance to the developing and least-developed countries and come up with a meaningful
solution to these concerns.  We would like our developed country friends to understand and appreciate
these concerns and make substantial endeavours to make the special and differential provisions moremeaningful to the developing and least-developed country Members.
__________