RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/CTD/M/8
18 December 2002
(02-6993)
Committee on Trade and Development
Eighth Special Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 17 OCTOBER 2002
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Ransford Smith (Jamaica)
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Chairman recalled that on 31 July 2002, the General Council had instructed the Special
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) "to continue the analysis and
examination of the various Agreement-specific proposals and issues that have been raised ... utilizing,as appropriate, the expertise available in other WTO bodies and negotiating groups, and facilitating
this … where feasible, through the holding of back-to-back meetings of the Special Session with the
meetings of these bodies and groups".  The meeting had been convened with this in mind, and he
welcomed the delegates who usually attended the meetings of the Committee on Technical Barriers to
Trade (TBT).  The Chairman then indicated that the draft agenda was contained in airgram
WTO/AIR/1924 of 10 October 2002.
2. The agenda was so adopted.
B. DISCUSSION OF AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS -AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO
TRADE
3. The Chairman stated that there were two proposals addressing the Agreement on TBT.  The
first proposal had been submitted by the delegations of Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras,
India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mauritius, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Zimbabwe and was contained
in TN/CTD/W/2.  The second one had been submitted by the African Group, and was contained in
TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2.  He suggested that th e proposals be considered in turn.
4. The representative of India re-introduced the submission with respect to Article 12.3 of the
Agreement on TBT, contained in TN/CTD/W/2 on behalf of the group of countries co-sponsoring the
paper.  He said that the proposal aimed to address the difficulties that exporters from developingcountries faced in accessing developed country markets.  The main objective of the proposal was to
provide for effective transfer of technology or assistance for building up of facilities in developing
countries.  He noted that the preamble of the Agreement also referred to the transfer of technology
from developed to developing countries.
5. The representative of the United States recognized that even though the proposal was
qualified by the word "if", it still did not seem appropriate from a developmental perspective for a
number of reasons.  Firstly, the emphasis of the TBT Agreement and the emphasis of the proposal
seemed to be somewhat different;  the TBT Agreement sought to address the concerns arising out of
the application of technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures through
various transparency procedures, while the proposal appeared to be limited only to the application ofthese procedures.  In order for the Least-Develope d Countries (LDCs) to achieve greater benefits, itTN/CTD/M/8
Page 2
was suggested that they should take advantage of Article 10.6 of the Agreement.  In addition, the
Agreement provided for opportunities for consultations in the proposal phase and that provided the
best opportunity to address situations in which the LDCs were not able to meet the stipulated
requirements in areas of trade interest to them.  Secondly, the proposal did not permit flexibility in
areas where LDCs may not have a comparative advantage nor export interest.  However, it was notclear whether developed countries would be obligated to create an export demand in such situations.
Thirdly, the need to comply with import standards was not a function of WTO obligations, but of
national market requirements.  The LDCs should exercise their right of consultation and indicate
where they would have difficulty if the said standard were to be implemented.  Finally, her delegation
was of the view that the proposal should have included the issue of conformity assessment procedures
which was being discussed.
6. The representatives of Switzerland, the European Communities
, and Paraguay  suggested that
the exercise in the Special Session could benefit from the ongoing work in the TBT Committee
particularly from the response to a questionnaire designed to help developing countries identify and
prioritise their specific technical assistance needs.  The representative of Cuba also welcomed that
exercise but indicated that special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions should be made moreprecise and operational.  The representative of Sri Lanka questioned whether the problems relating to
the implementation of the existing provisions were being adequately addressed in the TBT
Committee.  In this regard, the representative of Malaysia noted that a compilation of problems faced
by Members, was already under consideration in the Committee on TBT.
7. The representative of Switzerland stated that in July 2000 and March 2001, the delegation of
Switzerland, Germany and Austria had offered to train persons from developing countries in the field
of conformity assessment.  They had, however, not received any response.  The offer had been made
since his delegation agreed with developing countries that complying with technical regulations could
be a problem.  The establishment of a new fund, however, was not necessarily the most effective
approach and a more systematic approach was needed whereby developing countries could identify
their technical assistance needs.  The TBT workshop on technical assistance planned for March 2003would also be useful in this regard.  His delegation was ready to finance and give high priority to
technical assistance in the field of TBT.  It was difficult however, for his delegation to accept the
aspect of the proposal that implied that the adoption of technical regulations should be conditional to
prior approval by other countries, and that there should be a systemic obligation to provide technology
and assistance.  His delegation thought that the discussion on the proposal should take place in the
TBT Committee.
8. The representative of the European Communitie s recognized that the issue was a matter of
concern since there had been a proliferation of technical regulations.  His delegation was looking at
ways to address it, including considering reducing the number of existing technical regulations and
the introduction of new regulations within a "Better Regulation Programme.  His delegation was
examining the priorities identified by developi ng countries in the questionnaire in the TBT
Committee, and noted that the conformity of legislation had not been identified as a priority by manycountries.
9. The representative of Cuba stated that the proposal responded to the proliferation of technical
rules and regulations, which had affected developing countries access to developed country markets.
They were affected by importing countries composing standards, regulations and conformity
assessment procedures which were not compatible with the TBT Agreement.   Even in situations
where the procedures followed were compatible with the provisions of the Agreement, developing
countries could not comply with the standards since they lacked the requisite technical and financial
capacity.  The S&D treatment under the Agreement was not sufficient.  In response to the developed
country delegations that had asked developing country Members why they had not used some of the
S&D provisions, he asked them why the needs of developing countries had not been taken intoTN/CTD/M/8
Page 3
account.  He said that the initiative of identify ing, in the Committee on TBT, the priority needs of
developing countries, was a positive one, but that there was no reason why that should detract from
the proposal they were examining in the Special Session of the CTD.
10. The representative of Norway stated that her delegation understood that developing countries
could encounter some difficulties in the formulation and application of technical regulations and
standards.  The implementation of the Doha Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns
should be followed-up, and the work done in the TBT Committee should also be taken into account.
She requested additional information with respect to the phrase "relevant technology and technical
facilities on preferential and non-commercial terms, preferably free of cost" mentioned in the
Article 12.3 proposal.  Her delegation's initial comments on that issue were that this should be
considered through bilateral technical cooperation arrangements rather than through binding
commitments.
11. The representative of Egypt thanked the delegation of Norway for recognising the problems
faced by developing countries.  His delegation faced problems complying with the technical
regulations and standards applied by developed country Members.  They also encountered problems
in implementing the Agreement, even though its provisions mandated that technical regulations,
standards and conformity assessment procedures should not create unnecessary barriers to trade.Developing countries should not be endangered by the use of such regulations.  The proposal aimed to
stimulate the transfer of technology as also call ed for in the preamble of the TBT Agreement.  He
indicated that the proposal outlined ways to actually operationalize the technical assistance
programme in the TBT Committee.
12. The representatives of Colombia, Argentina
, Paraguay , Thailand , Bolivia , Brazil , Malaysia ,
Venezuela, China , Haiti , Senegal  and Peru  supported the proposal contained in TN/CTD/W/2.  They
said that developing countries lacked resources, such as infrastructure, laboratories and trained
personnel to adequately implement the TBT Agreement, and that the proposal sought to address that
problem.
13. The representative of Colombia stated that they had benefitted from TBT-related technical
assistance, and agreed with the delegation of Cuba that technical assistance for developing countries
could complement that which had been proposed with respect to Article 12.3.
14. The representative of Sri Lanka stated that her delegation recognized the right of countries to
impose technical regulations in pursuance of the objectives contained in the TBT Agreement.  Before
the TBT Agreement came into being, only Article XX(d) of GATT 1947; provided such rights and
obligations.  However, when the TBT Agreement was concluded some of the elements of Part IV of
GATT 1947 such as Article XXXVII:3(c), had not been included.  She enquired whether Memberswere of the view that the aspect of Article XXXVII:3(c) of GATT 1947 with respect to "constructive
remedies" had been included in Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement.  The phrase "take into account
special development needs with a view to .." was a best-endeavour clause and did not mention the
type of constructive remedies to be undertaken.  Her delegation saw the proposal as trying to remedy
that situation and give the provision meaning and clarity.
15. The representative of Pakistan, while welcoming some of the solutions referred to by the
representative of the European Communities with respect to the proliferation of rules and regulations,
stated that that may not solve the problem.  That was due to the fact that the mandate of the Special
Session was to address these problems by December 2002.  Similarly with respect to the comments by
some delegations that the March 2003 Workshop would be beneficial to move these issues forward,he noted that the Special Session did not have time until March 2003.TN/CTD/M/8
Page 4
16. The representative of Thailand had similar views as the delegation of Pakistan.  She indicated
that while the work being done in the TBT Committee was useful to developing countries, the Doha
mandate was to actually make the existing provisions more precise and effective.  The Special Session
should therefore work expeditiously given the December deadline.
17. The representative of Canada said that his delegation recognized the problems that the
proposal was trying to address, and was committed to the provision of technical assistance in this
regard.  However, his delegation's view was that the proposal did not contain a structured approach to
the systemic problems, such as the lack of capacity of countries to fulfill standards and technical
regulation which were impacting on their market access, and therefore did not see the proposal as
being the most suitable solution to the problem.  He noted that the TBT Agreement did provide for
notifications and reactions to any proposed new technical regulations and specified that the
regulations be "the least trade restrictive possible".  His delegation had been involved in technicalassistance programmes designed to build up the notification capacity of other Members, and saw
technical assistance as perhaps being more effective than the proposal.  That could be based on the
work being undertaken in the TBT Committee, where the priorities of developing country Members
were being identified.
18. The representative of Brazil agreed with the representative of Egypt that the proposal sought
to improve the operationalization of S&D provisions, and was therefore within the mandate of the
Doha Ministerial Conference.   The proposal added value to the treatment of technical barriers.
19. The representative of Malaysia stated that the increasing requirements set by trading partners
were difficult for developing countries to meet, since they often did not have access to technology.
She enquired how developing countries could be  assisted in that regard.  The proposals in
TN/CTD/W/2 and TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 on the TBT Agreement sought to address these problems.
20. The representative of New Zealand stated that the proposal was at odds to the current
approach of Article 12.3.  Her delegation saw that approach, as being preventive and therefore the
best approach to ensure that technical regulations did not create obstacles to exports from developing
countries.  The proposal however, was a "second-best" approach, since it aimed to rectify problemscaused by measures which had already been adopted.  She enquired whether the proposal meant a
direct transfer of technology to private producers - who were actually trying to meet the standards in
the export markets - or to supplement government standards and conformity infrastructures.
21. The representative of Mexico joined those delegations who had highlighted the difficulties in
complying with developed countries' TBT, and said that in many cases exports from his country had
been negatively affected by such standards.  The comments made by the representatives of some
developed countries, that during the drafting process developing countries should try to intervene inthe rule-making process seemed unrealistic.  One of the main problems faced by developing countries
was the scarce participation of the private sector in that kind of regulation.   He nonetheless agreed
with the views of the United States with respect to  creating a demand in markets.  The proposal did go
in the right direction, but more information was ne cessary with respect to how useful Articles 11
and 12 of the TBT Agreement had been.  Additions to Article 12 were probably necessary, but he wasnot certain that technology was what was needed.  In that connection he emphasized the importance of
the discussion on technical assistance in the TBT Committee, and of the questionnaires that had been
sent to Members.  It had to be determined whether that proposal would serve the purpose of making
the S&D provisions operational, as mandated by the Doha Ministerial Declaration, or whether other
measures were required, such as enabling developing countries to have greater influence in theprocess of elaboration of technical regulations by developed countries.
22. The representative of Venezuela stated that the work in the TBT Committee was useful but
would not give the Special Session a solution to the problems identified by developing countries.  TheTN/CTD/M/8
Page 5
mandate of the Special Session was to ensure that S&D provisions were made effective and
operational and the proposal in TN/CTD/W/2 sought to do exactly this.
23. The representative of China saw the proposal as being pertinent to S&D treatment in the TBT
Committee and said that technical assistance was important in that regard.
24. The representative of Haiti stated that the proposal was in keeping with Article 12.3 which
required Members to "take account of the special development, financial and trade needs of
developing country Members".  The language used in the proposal was carefully chosen to remedy the
problem, and stated that "if an exporting developing country member identifies specific problems of
inadequate technology …" they shall be provided with the "relevant technology and technical
facilities on preferential and non-commercial term, preferably free of cost".  The proposal was
justified within the framework of S&D treatment.  The proposal did not go beyond what Article 12.3
stipulated, but only sought to clarify it, in compliance with the Doha mandate.
25. The representative of Senegal supported the proposal.  He stated that the proposal was logical
and had been conceived as an extension of Articl e 12.3, since some Members were facing problems in
complying with the provisions, in the absence of access to relevant technology and financial
resources.  The proposal went in the same direction as the African Group's proposal for the
establishment of a fund.  The proposal was necessary for capacity-building to ensure that provisionswere made effective and operational.  Concerning the statement made by the representative of New
Zealand, that not all technical regulations emanated from the State, he said that even in such a case the
problem of compliance still remained.  Moreover, standardization bodies were not located in
developing countries, and very often the rules which were set created constraints for developing
countries.
26. The representative of Peru associated her delegation with the statements made by the
delegations of Egypt, Colombia and Paraguay.
27. The representative of India stated that some of the statements made by the delegations of the
European Communities, Canada and Norway seemed positive.  However, he did not agree with
comment that the proposal was not desirable from a developmental perspective.  With respect to theadvice to use the rights available within the TBT Agreement, his delegation was of the view that
Article 12.3 provided one such right.  That right, however, was meaningless in its current form and
hence the proposal.  In response to the question as to whether the proposal would only be for products
for which there was an export-interest in a developing country, he echoed what had been said by the
representative of Haiti that the proposal clearly stated that it would be valid where "an exporting
developing country Member identifies specific problems …".  It was logical to assume that a Member
would not raise such a problem unless it had an export interest in the product.  His delegation did notagree with the comment made by some delegations that technical assistance was sufficient to address
the concerns expressed with respect to Article 12.3.  Technical assistance could address only one facet
of the problem.  The main thrust of the proposal was that technology should be made available to
developing countries on reasonable terms , which was not covered by the WTO technical assistance
programme or any other similar programmes .  With respect to the suggestion made that the issues be
dealt with bilaterally, he enquired about the meaning of Article 12.3 since it had been drafted as a
multilateral S&D treatment provision.  The proposal aimed at rectifying that situation.  With respect
to the purpose of the TBT Agreement, he agreed with the delegation of the European Communities
that the main objective was to reduce the impact of technical barriers on international trade.  No
doubt, given the proliferation of the measures, reducing the number of new measures would be thebest approach, but since this had not happened, the proponents had proposed a "second-best
approach", to address the concerns.  In response to the question as to whether technology transfer was
envisaged for private producers or to supplement government infrastructure, he indicated that the co-TN/CTD/M/8
Page 6
sponsors were of the view that it could be provided to either depending on the situation in individual
countries and the nature of the technical assistance required.
28. The representative of Cuba, indicated that the problems of developing countries in
participating in standardisation bodies had been discussed in the SPS and TBT Committees.  Some
Members did not have the capacity to examine the impact of provisions on their exports when thesewere being drafted.  The proposal, however, aimed to provide the necessary technology to overcome
some of these obstacles.  With respect to the comment by the representative of Mexico that the
problems should be dealt with through Articles 11 and 12, he stated that Article 12 was a best-
endeavour provision which had not proved to be effective.  He also said that with respect to
Article 11, the responses to the questionnaire in the Committee on TBT would be useful, though that
should not reduce the need for the proposal being considered in the Special Session.
29. The Chairman indicated that they had had detailed discussions on the proposal.  The Special
Session had heard different perspectives and there had been a recognition of some of the problems
that needed to be addressed.  Further discussions were needed in an effort to move as far forward as
possible.  The Chairman then indicated that the next proposal, that by the African Group, contained in
TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 addressing Articles 11 and 12 of the TBT Agreement be taken up.
30. The representative of Kenya indicated that they were keen to comply with the standards set,
but often did not have the capacity to do so.  Some of the standards could therefore become barriers to
trade.  The African Group proposal contained two basic components - technical and financial
assistance, in order for the countries to attain the standards set without harming their actual or
potential trade; and transition periods.  For the first component, the proposal called for the
establishment of a fund, and a window within the Global Trust Fund (GTF).  The use to which thisfund could be put was contained in paragraph 57(f) of TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2.  The second part of the
proposal relating to transition periods was proposed in case the technical assistance did not achieve its
desired objectives.  In such cases, an extended period to undertake adjustments necessary to comply
with the provisions of the Agreement would be necessary before the standards were to become
applicable.
31. The representative of Senegal stated that the African Group proposal was similar to the
proposal contained in TN/CTD/W/2 in that it sought to address some of the constraints with respect to
financial capacity and infrastructure, in order to enable developing countries to address market access
barriers.
32. The representative of Pakistan, supported by India , said that the representative of Kenya had
already elaborated the proposals in detail, and that his delegation now hoped for concrete suggestions
on how to make the provisions effective.
33. The representative of Egypt stated that a number of the problems of developing countries
would be resolved if financial resources were made available.  His delegation therefore supported the
African Group proposal to establish a fund.
34. The representative of China supported the proposal made by the African Group.
35. The representative of Australia commenting on the proposals made by the African Group, on
Articles 11 and 12 of the TBT Agreement, contained in paragraph 57 of TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2, said
that those issues were best addressed through the agreed arrangements for technical assistance and
capacity building as well as other channels of direct assistance.  Her delegation noted the recent
responses to the questionnaire aimed at assisting developing country Members in identifying their
needs and priorities, and welcomed the opportunity to work with Members in that forum.  In relation
to the proposal contained in paragraph 57(b) of the African Group paper, her delegation was of theTN/CTD/M/8
Page 7
view that developing and least-developed countries were in the best position to identify their needs
and difficulties in relation to the implementa tion and operation of the TBT Agreement.  S&D
measures to address such needs may not necessarily have to involve technical and financial assistance.
With respect to the proposal contained in paragraph 57(c), her delegation had problems with the
proposal for unqualified provision of funding/technical assistance.  Her delegation was also of theopinion that developing and least-developed countries should also play a part, whether financial or
otherwise, in that regard.  With respect to the pr oposal contained in paragraph 57(d), she stated that
each Member had to determine the trade impact of  standards on their trade interests.  Developed
country Members should not be constrained from legitimately operating their regulatory systems.
With respect to paragraph 57(e), her delegation was of the opinion that provided certain conditions
were fulfilled, it may be possible to reach an agreement on an indicative time frame for such
exemptions.  Finally, in relation to the proposal in paragraph 57(f) she sought additional informationwith respect to the objectives of the proposal.
36. The representative of Canada stated that with respect to the proposal in paragraph 57(a) of
TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2, his delegation was of the view that technical assistance should be provided from
the common pool and that another fund would not really be conducive in this regard.  The proposal to
earmark specific funds for TBT within the GTF (par agraph 57(f)) would remove the flexibility for
which the GTF was established.  With respect to the proposal for fully-funded technical assistance
(paragraphs 57(b) & (c)), his delegation agreed with the representative of Australia's comments that
the proposal would limit the funds available since the number of countries in a position to fully fund
technical assistance would be limited.  His delegation suggested that it would be more helpful to have
a pool of donors who could contribute to need-based technical assistance.
37. The representative of Haiti supported the proposal, and stressed that this proposal went in the
direction of making the provisions more precise, effective and operational as mandated in the Doha
Ministerial Declaration.
38. The representative of Norway referred to the proposal contained in paragraph 57(a) of
TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2, and agreed that Article 11 of the TBT Agreement contained binding obligations
for Members.  Her delegation, however, did not support the proposal for the establishment of a new
fund.  She felt that the increase of the WTO budget would be the long-term solution for providing
funds for technical assistance on a sustainable basis.  With respect to the proposal in paragraph 57(d)
on impact assessment, her delegation was of the opinion that the proposal implied a substantial
change in Members rights and obligations, and that wo uld be difficult to accept.  With respect to the
proposal in paragraph 57(e) on time-limited exemptions for three years, WT/COMTD/W/77/Rev.1
indicated that no requests for time-limited exemptions had been made under Article 12.8 of the TBTAgreement.  Her delegation therefore had difficulty in considering the proposal without being
provided with additional information on the rationale for the proposal.  Her delegation doubted
whether an automatic granting of a three year exemption would be helpful.
39. The representative of the European Communities, stated that the work under-way in the TBT
Committee with respect to technical assistance was the best place to examine that part of the proposal,
since a lot of work had already been done there, ev en though it was difficult to currently judge the
need for additional funds.  With respect to the proposal contained in paragraph 57(g) of
TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 on technology transfer, he wondere d to what extent it was related to the TBT
issue, and enquired as to whether the issue had been discussed in relation to other Agreements.
40. The representative of Japan referring to the proposal in paragraph 57(a) of
TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2, said that his delegation questioned the efficiency of establishing a fund for a
specific purpose, given the limited financial resources available.  With respect to the proposal in
paragraph 57(b), his delegation would have difficulty in implementing it, given the domestic laws and
regulations.  With respect to the proposal contained in paragraph 57(c), in order for it to be successful,TN/CTD/M/8
Page 8
it would require a reasonable burden between developing and developed country Members in order to
make successful implementation of technical assistance.  With respect to the proposal in
paragraph 57(e), his delegation could not agree that extensions be automatically granted under the
TBT Agreement.
41. The representative of Pakistan said that the GTF was a result of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration.  The Doha Development Agenda was geared around the needs of the developing
countries and LDCs.  With respect to the suggesti on by the EC to increase the regular WTO budget,
he stated that it would imply that each Members contribution would be increased, including those
Members seeking assistance.
42. The representative of Kenya indicated that the proposal had been made to improve
compliance with the TBT Agreement.  Some of the comments, however, seemed to imply that while
more flexibility could be given, but not funds.  With respect to the suggestion that the developingcountries should prioritise their technical assistance needs and submit them through the GTF, he said
that countries were restricted to proposing only two activities.  Programmes which were only 1-2 days
long were not sufficient to build capacity.  The African Group proposal was a practical way of
ensuring that developing countries and LDCs could participate in standard setting bodies, and also
comply with the rules and regulations prescribed in  the TBT Agreement.  With respect to the general
comments about the source of funding, the African Group was of the opinion that those Members who
were imposing the standards, should contribute to this fund.
43. The Chairman indicated that the proposals on the TBT Agreement needed to be further
discussed.  A number of questions had also been raised, such as whether the proposal contained in
paragraph 57(g) of TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 with respect to technology transfer was confined to the TBT,
or was a more horizontal issue.  The issue of impact assessment had also been raised and Members
had asked whether this would create an imbalance in the current rights and obligations.
C. OTHER BUSINESS
44. The Chairman reminded Members that the Seve nth Special Session would be reconvened on
18 November 2002.  The next formal meeting after that, would be held on 21 and 23 October 2002 to
discuss the proposals on the Agreement on Anti-Dumping, Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Duties, the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the Agreement on
Safeguards.  The meeting was closed.
__________