RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/CTD/M/12
21 January 2003
(03-0318)
Committee on Trade and Development
Twelfth Special Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 20 NOVEMBER 2002
Chairman:  H.E. Mr Ransford Smith (Jamaica)
A. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT  AGENDA
1. The Chairman indicated that the draft agenda for the meeting was contained in airgram
WTO/AIR/1952 of 29 October 2002.
2. The agenda was adopted.
B. AGREEMENT SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
3. The Chairman said that as indicated in the Agenda, it was proposed to take up proposals
relating to the Agreement on Agriculture in the meeting.  He said that these proposals were contained
in two documents: TN/CTD/3/Rev.2 by the African Group, on Articles 6.2, 14, 15.1 and 15.2 of theAgreement; and TN/CTD/W/4 by the least-developed countries (LDCs) on Article 15.2 of the
Agreement.
4. The representative of Kenya briefly re-introduced the African Group proposal contained in
TN/CTD/3/Rev.2.  He said that his delegation believed those proposal could easily be accepted, since
they were not adding to the existing obligations.
5. The representative of Australia referring to the African Group's proposal, said that her
delegation supported the continuation of the provisions of Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture
to enable developing country Members to promote rural development and assist their low income and
resource poor farmers.  However, the proposal by the African Group on Article 14 seemed somewhat
misplaced since those concerns were better raised in the Committee on Sanitary and PhytosanitaryMeasures (SPS).  She sought further clarificati on on the proposal on Article 15.1, and noted that the
Cairns Group proposal on market access already provided a strong focus on special and differential
(S&D) treatment.  Her delegation was sympathetic with the proposal on Article 15.2 by the African
Group.  She felt that longer transition periods coul d be considered for developing country Members
facing major adjustment problems, provided such requests were made well before the expiry of those
transition periods.  As for the LDCs' proposal, she accepted that LDCs should continue to be
exempted from reductions commitments.  She said that the Working Group on Trade, Debt andFinance was better placed to consider the problems mentioned in relation to international financial
institutions, including the problems of coherence mentioned in the proposal.
6. The representative of Canada welcomed the opportunity provided by the holding of back to
back meetings. Negotiations in Agriculture were ongoing and that was a crucial time as the modalities
had to be finalized in the following few months.  She noted the importance of not prejudging theTN/CTD/M/12
Page 2
outcome of the agriculture negotiations which were underway.  The operation of Article 6.2 had been
a clear focus of the discussions held in the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture that week
and there seemed to be a general view about contin uing with the provisions of Article 6.2.  Changes to
that Article would therefore also be better considered in those negotiations.  As for the proposal on
Article 14, which concerned notification and reporting of SPS measures, she stressed that the productcoverage of the SPS Agreement went beyond agricultural products.  She recalled the submission made
recently by the delegation of Canada in the SPS Committee, on how to improve the effectiveness and
transparency of S&D treatment provisions.  Commenting on the proposal on Article 15.1, she
expressed her delegation's reluctance to prejudge the outcome of negotiations in that respect.  With
respect to the proposal on Article 15.2, she noted that it contained a number of ideas, one of which
was that LDCs should be exempted from undertaking reduction commitments as already provided for
in the Agreement on Agriculture: that issue had been under discussion in the negotiations onAgriculture and was being addressed there.  She also noted that the issue of coherence between WTO
rules and national commitments rela ting to international financial institutions was a more general and
horizontal one and should be taken up in th e Working Group on Trade Debt and Finance.
7. The representative of the United States expressed her delegation's willingness to look at
criteria for exempting measures in Article 6.2 or in the Green Box but said that any proposed
measures should be reviewed and evaluated in the context of the reform objectives set out in the Doha
Development Agenda.  Her comments on the specific proposals were made with that perspective.  The
proposal on Article 6.2 seemed to entail too broad an exemption, covering virtually all farm
programmes; such an exemption could negatively impact agricultural exports from all Members,
including developing and LDC ones; moreover the be nefits sought were not clear.  She therefore
sought clarification on that proposal, especially si nce her delegation was not aware of any example of
development programmes employed by developing countries that did not qualify for the existing S&D
exemptions.  With respect to the proposal on Article 14 she observed that the SPS Agreement already
took care of the concern raised, although she added th at it would be useful to raise developing country
Members' awareness of the notification process in that area.  The proposal on Article 15.1 seemed torewrite what had been already agreed to in th e Uruguay Round.  She was uncomfortable with the
concept embodied in the African Group proposal on Article 15.2, since she was not sure that allowing
developing country Members to increase their support levels above those committed to in the
Uruguay Round would necessarily promote growth and development.  She added that the issue raised
in the LDCs' proposal on Article 15.2 should rather be raised in the agriculture negotiations.
8. The representative of the European Communities noted that Members had been discussing
Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture in the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture
and there seemed to be a general consensus that the exemptions under Article 6.2 should continue.  He
noted that so far no specific problem had been raised in that connection in the Committee on
Agriculture.  For this reason it was perhaps not urgent to take a decision in that respect in the Special
Session of the CTD, and it would be better to discuss that issue in the negotiations on Agriculture.
The issue raised in the proposal on Article 14 was a difficult one and was under consideration in theSPS Committee.  The Secretariat had been issuing a monthly summary of SPS measures.  However, it
was not always easy to know whether a particular measure would impact developing countries' trade
interests or not.  He sought clarification on th e proposal on Article 15.1, since longer time-frames
were already provided for in the Agreement.  With respect to the proposal on Article 15.2, he noted
that the Agreement had been in operation for a number of years and problems with theimplementation of this provision had not been raised in the Committee on Agriculture.  He therefore
wished to know what the specific problem was.  In  an analogous way, he did not see any justifications
for introducing the right for developing and least-developed country Members to modify their
commitments as envisaged in the second part of the proposal on Article 15.2 by the African Group.
As it was, he noted that S&D treatment provisions were being discussed extensively in Committee onAgriculture.  With respect to the proposal on the Marrakesh Decision on the Net Food-Importing
Developing Countries, he noted that discussions in  that connection, including on the setting up of a
revolving fund, were going on and that discussions on this issue should continue in that forum .TN/CTD/M/12
Page 3
9. The representative of Kenya, responding to some of the comments that had been made, said
that it was necessary to differentiate betw een the Doha mandate on reviewing S&D treatment
provisions as they existed in the current Agreemen ts and the work going on in some of the negotiating
bodies.  He said that developing and least-developed country Members could not wait until 2005 for
some of the existing problems to be addressed.  Responding to other interventions which had beenmade, he said that the solution to some of the developing and least-developed country Members'
problems could not be based only on historical experience; attention should instead be focused on the
existing rules and on the need to operationalize them, in pursuance of the mandate given by Ministers
at Doha.  He acknowledged that the SPS Agreement had a broader coverage, but reiterated that any
measures adopted by Members on agricultural products should be reported to Committee on
Agriculture so that Members knew how they were affected by measures in that particular sector.
10. The representative of Norway noted that Article 15.2 already exempted the LDCs from
undertaking reduction commitments.  They understood the problem raised about the lack of
coherence, but felt that commitments on behalf of other international organizations could not be made
in the WTO.  However, the Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance could definitely consider
some of the issues that had been raised.
11. The representative of Switzerland said that Article 6.2 had worked well in the past, and asked
the reasons for suggesting changes to it at that  stage.  Additional flexibility could perhaps be
introduced for smaller groups of developing countries, like low income and transition countries and
net food-importers.  As an alternative, a change of the de minimis  clause for Amber Box measures, for
low income developing and transition countries could be envisaged.  With respect to the proposal on
Article 14, his delegation tended to agree with the representative of Kenya that it would be useful tohave some reporting on SPS measures, although the periodicity of this reporting should be discussed.
The proposal on Article 15.1 could certainly be considered in general terms, but it would be better to
look into it once the market access conditions and improvements therein had been negotiated.  The
proposal on Article 15.2 had to be specific; one could not provide for a carte blanche  extension of
transition periods.  On the proposal by the LDCs he agreed with Norway that there was a problem ofcoherence.  However, any agreement under the WTO would only be a threshold one and would not be
the same as would result from that Member negotiating with the Bretton Woods institutions on an
adjustment proposal.  There was however a need to further discuss the implications of those measures
in both institutions.
12. The representative of Indonesia supported the African Group proposal on Article 6.2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture and noted that it was more or less what Members had discussed during the
agriculture negotiations.  Article 6.2 embodied a very legitimate concern of developing and least-developed countries.  The Agreement on Agriculture provided S&D treatment in investment,
subsidies, agricultural import subsidies and AMS reductions.  However, since most of the developing
country Members had limited financial resources their financial support under the Amber Box was
invariably lower than the de minimis level.  He believed that S&D treatment therefore played a role in
breaching the imbalance between developing and developed Members in domestic support andArticle 6.2 was very close to what developing and least-developed country Members wanted, i.e.
resources for low income farmers.  He also supported the statement made by the representative of
Kenya that the Doha mandate on the work programme on S&D issues was different from the
mandated negotiations in Agriculture.  He agreed with the delegation of Canada that Members were
still looking for a good mechanism on notifications of SPS measures, but  felt that some of the work of
the SPS Committee and the Committee on Agriculture could go hand in hand.
13. The representative of China said that because of the special needs of developing countries and
of the importance of food security to them it was fundamental that S&D treatment be an integral part
of all elements of the negotiations.  S&D provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture did provide
some flexibility, but since most developing countries had limited resources, they could not reallyutilise those flexibilities.  Moreover, even though developing countries were fulfilling theirTN/CTD/M/12
Page 4
commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture, other Members continued to provide large support
and subsidies for agriculture.  Negotiations should afford practical means to reduce this imbalance
between developed and developing country Members and lead to effective S&D treatment provisions.
14. The representative of Hungary said that the proposal on Article 6.2 was too broad.  With
respect to the proposals on Articles 15.1 and 15.2 she repeated what her delegation had stated the day
before in the Committee on Agriculture, namely that  they were ready to negotiate S&D treatment in
Agriculture to meet the needs of LDCs, net food-importing developing countries and other low
income developing countries.
15. The representative of Mexico asked for clarifications on the proposal on Article 14 by the
African Group, noting that the fact that SPS measures should not act as a disguised restriction to the
trade of other Members was already provided for in the SPS Agreement.  Moreover the SPS
Committee was undertaking important efforts as far as transparency was concerned.  His delegationdid not therefore see the importance of separately identifying measures that would especially affect
developing countries, since all measures had a potential to do so.  He therefore sought further
clarifications on the objectives of the proposal.
16. The representative of Kenya said it was not the first time that SPS measures were being
discussed.  His delegation believed that the purpose of the notification obligation was to show how
much agricultural trade originating from developi ng and least-developed country Members was being
affected by SPS-related measures.  They were not seeking to impose an additional obligation, but
merely to ensure transparency.
17. The representative of the European Communities added that his delegation did not have any
problem with the first part of the proposal on Article 14, since the SPS Agreement already stipulated
that SPS measures should not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction
on international trade.  What his delegation found problematic was producing a report every two
years: they did not understand the usefulness of th at since the Secretariat was already producing a
monthly report, in which the measures which affected developing countries were identified.  It also
had to be noted that most SPS measures had a potential effect on developing countries.  It mighttherefore be more useful to compile the Secretariat's monthly reports every two years and submit that
compilation to the Committee on Agriculture.
18. The representative of Mexico said he did not agree with the African Group, since he believed
that transparency was only meant to make sure that  Members knew what measures were in force.  He
noted that the obligation envisaged in the proposal on  Article 14 would also be on developing country
Members, and asked whether that was intended by the proponents.
19. The representative of Kenya specified that in their proposal they had suggested such a
reporting to be done every six months, and not every two years.  He also said that the proponents
belief was that that information would have a useful  impact on developing countries agricultural trade.
In response to the query made by Mexico, he said his delegation saw no harm in the reporting
requirement extending to developing country Members as well.
22. The Chairman, while noting that that was the last of the scheduled back-to-back meetings,
said that the responses had been both extensive and incisive and that the Special Session of the
Committee on Trade and Development would continue to examine how to take some of the proposals
forward.
23. The meeting was closed.
__________