RESTRICTED  
  
TN/CTD/M/59  
 
20 July 2023 
(23-4987) Page: 1/15 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Fifty-Ninth Special Session    
 
  
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 7 JUNE  2023 
Chairperson : Ambassador Kadra Ahmed Hassan (Djibouti ) 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ....................  1 
B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE G -90 ................................ ................................ ........  1 
(I) G-90 Document for the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
on 10 Agreement -specific Special and Diff erential Treatment Proposals (JOB/TN/CTD/2 - 
JOB/TNC/106)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  1 
(II) G -90 Document for the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
on Special and Differential Treatment Proposals on the Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade 
(JOB/TN/CT D/3 – JOB/TNC/110)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  1 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 15 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA   
1. The Chairperson  said that t he draft agenda  for the 5 9th Special Session of the Committee on 
Trade and Development (CTD SS) was circulated in Airgram WTO/AIR /TN/CTD/ 11 of 26 May 2023 . 
2. The agenda  was adopted .  
B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE G -90 
(I) G-90 Document for the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development on 10 Agreement -specific Special and Differential Treatment 
Proposals (JOB/TN/CTD/2 - JOB/TNC/106)  
(II) G-90 Document for the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development on Special and Differential Treatment Proposals on the 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures and the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (JOB/TN/CTD/3 – JOB/TNC/110)  
3. The Chairperson  said that two communications from the G90 were listed under the present  
agenda item. However, before turning to these communications, she wished to provide some 
background on what ha d transpired in the CTD SS since  the Twelfth WTO Ministerial Conference  
(MC12 ), and where things st ood now in the work. She also wished to say a few words about the 
process ahead.  She firstly recall ed that, in paragraph 2 of the MC12 Outcome Document 
(WT/MIN(22)/24 - WT/L/1135 ), Ministers had reaffirmed the special and differential treatment 
(S&D) provisions for developing  country Members and least developed countries ( LDCs) as an 
integral part of the WTO and its Agreements. They had stated that S&D in WTO Agreements should 
be precise, effective and operational. In the same paragraph, they had also instructed officials to 
continue to work on improvi ng the application of S&D in the CTD SS and other relevant venues in 
the WTO, as agreed and report on progress to the General  Council before  the Thirteenth 
WTO Ministerial Conference  (MC13 ). A formal meeting of the CTD SS was convened on 
23 September  2022 to allow an exchange of views on the way forward in the CTD SS after MC12. 
At that meeting, she was pleased to note the readiness expressed by many delegations to fulfil TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Ministers' instructions in paragraph 2 of the MC12 Outcome Document – even if divergen t views on 
the ten G90 Agreement -specific proposals (ASPs) remained.  An unofficial room document 
(RD/TN/CTD/1 ) was submitted by the G90 for discussion during that meeting. Sri Lanka 
subsequently requested to be added as a co -sponsor of the document. In  addition to putting forward 
a case for S&D, the room document, inter alia , called on the CTD SS and Members to resume work 
and regular engagements through structured discussions in fulfilment of the commitment and 
expected outcomes of Ministers before MC13.  
4. The G90 had also indicated that it would be submitting a formal proposal on how the work of 
the CTD SS could be organized and structured in the post -MC12 period, including on the substantive 
elements.  The formal proposal by the G90 was subsequently circulated on 28 February 2023  
(JOB/TN/CTD/2 - JOB/TNC/106 ). A formal CTD SS meeting was convened on 20 March 2023 to allow 
Members to consider this submission. She recalled that, at the meeting on 20 March, 
the Special  Session had agreed to t he process laid out in Section B of the submission. The process 
consist ed of a series of formal meetings to have in -depth discussions on each of the ten G90 ASPs, 
complemented as necessary by informal meetings and technical workshops.  This submission 
appea red once again on the agenda for the present  meeting. She underst ood that the G90 wished 
to maintain this submission on the agenda, as it provide d the context for the newest G90 submission 
– which was circulated on 22 May 2023 (JOB/TN/CTD/3 - JOB/TNC/110 ) and w ould be the main 
focus of discussions. She also inform ed Members that, after the agenda for the present  meeting was 
issued, a corrigendum to the newest submission was circulated on 30 May 2023 
(JOB/TN/CTD/3/Corr.1 - JOB/TNC/110/Corr.1 ) to correct the language in footnote 6 on page 6.  The 
newest submission was in line with what the G90 had indicated at the last meeting – namely, that 
it would be submitting further textual proposals on each of the ASPs, starting with the proposals on 
the Agreement on the  Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ( SPS Agreement) and the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade ( TBT Agreement ). This new submission, which therefore 
concern ed the ASPs on the SPS and TBT  Agreements , was the first in a series that Members could  
expect to receive from the G90. The submission, along with the present  meeting, together 
kickstart ed the process that was agreed at the last meeting.  
5. She went on to say that she wished to say a few words on the pro cess ahead.  Since the last 
meeting, she had been considering how best to take forward the agreed process in practical terms  
and had  spoke n informally with several delegations on this matter. She had also held a small group 
informal consultation on 1 June 2 023, at which the process ahead was discussed.  After due 
consideration, and after taking on board the views and suggestions shared by Members, she had  
decided to appoint a number of facilitators to assist  her in taking the discussions forward on the 
variou s G90 ASPs. She believe d that this would  be the most practical and effective way to implement 
the agreed process, with a view to making progress and achieving concrete outcomes in the short 
time ahead of Members . Specifically , a total of five facilitators would  be appointed as Members  
move d through the process. Each facilitator w ould have responsibility for two ASPs. The facilitators 
would work with Members on the ASPs under their responsibility with the ultimate objective of finding 
landing zones and areas  of convergence. She was confident that the facilitators w ould conduct their 
work in a transparent, objective, impartial and inclusive manner.  It would be for the facilitators to 
hold technical and focused discussions with Members on each of the ASPs, in i nformal settings. 
The facilitators would also be in the best position to determine whether and when workshops may 
be required to help make progress on specific ASPs under their responsibility. After due consultation 
with the facilitators, she would  additio nally consider convening informal, open -ended 
CTD SS meetings – if it was felt that this would be useful and productive.  
6. She noted that the question ha d been posed to her as to whether private sector 
representatives or non -governmental organizations (NGOs) could participate in the upcoming 
discussions. Her feeling on this was that  workshops, which were outside of the normal 
CTD SS structure, may be the best place for Membe rs to hear from and engage with such entities – 
as and when this was deemed useful to make progress in the discussions. She would  be sharing this 
view with all the facilitators.  She added that the facilitators w ould keep her regularly informed of the 
status of the discussions they were facilitating. Furthermore, she envisage d that the facilitators 
would  provide an update on their work at each formal CTD SS meeting as Members  progress ed 
through the year.  Given that Members ha d now received the first textual submission by the G90 in 
the context of the agreed process, she was pleased to be able to announce the first facilitator, which 
was Singapore. As facilitator, Singapore w ould have the responsibility for the G90 ASPs concerning 
the SPS and TBT  Agreements. She express ed her sincere thanks and appreciation to Singapore for 
having agreed to take on this role  and noted that the delegation of Singapore w ould be contacting TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Members shortly on matters relating to these two ASPs.  As for the other facilitators, she would 
nominate them as and when the additional textual proposals by the G90 on specific ASPs were 
submitted. After each textual proposal was introduced in a formal CTD  SS meeting, the facilitators 
for the ASPs in question would  be responsible for the further  technical work with Members in informal 
settings. Members could  therefore eventually expect technical and focused work to be taking place 
simultaneously on all ten ASPs. Nevertheless, the CTD SS w ould remain the overall coordinating 
body for horizontal di scussions on the ASPs and where reports by the facilitators w ould be made.  
She hoped that  it was now clear to all about where Members  stood  in their discussions in the CTD  SS, 
and how the agreed process was going to be taken forward. She assure d Members that, although 
the technical discussions on each of the ASPs w ould be handled by the facilitators, her door would  
always remain open for any delegation that wishe d to discuss issues relating to the work of t he 
CTD SS, including the process ahead.  She then invited the representative of the G90 to introduce 
the new submission concerning the ASPs on the SPS and TBT Agreements.  
7. The representative of South Africa , on behalf of the G90 , delivered the following stat ement:  
8. The G90 thanks you for convening this meeting and appreciates this opportunity to present 
our submission contained in documents JOB/TN/CTD/3  and JOB/TNC/110. We also thank those 
delegations that made time to engage us prior to this meeting on our submission. The submission 
of the S&D proposals on the SPS and TBT Agreements is done in accordance with the roadmap and 
work programme that the G90 prese nted to the CTD  SS on 20 March 2023 as contained in documents 
JOB/TN/CTD/2  and JOB/TNC/ 106 and subsequently agreed by this Committee.  It encompass es the 
first set of the ten ASPs that the G90 will be submitting for negotiations. Our intention is to submit 
proposals on the remaining  eight over the next weeks with the ambition to have all these circulated 
before the summer break. We are fully cognizant  that this meeting is the beginning of a process . 
To paraphrase from our submission in February 2023,  it is the first of a series of formal meetings 
dedicated to focused , technical discussions on the ten G90 ASPs,  as well as  informal meetings or 
any formats that will lend themselves effective ly and constructive ly to the exercise before us . As we 
mentioned at the last CTD  SS meeting in March, the G90 believes that the reaffirmation by Ministers 
in paragraph 2 of the MC12 Outcome Document  – that S&D remains an integral part of the WTO and 
its Agreements  – signalled  a clear and significant political commitment. This enjoins all of us to 
double our efforts towards delivering on the longstanding mandate accorded  to this Committee – 
that of reviewing S&D provisions with a view to strengthening them and making them more p recise, 
effective, and operational, in line with paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. Echoing  the 
Chair's  words to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) in April 2023,  we too hope that the positive 
attitude Members exhibited that guided the d elegations to agree on the process at the last 
CTD SS meeting would persist in our engagements on the substantive issues.  
9. The G90 would like to restate that , in presenting these two ASPs on the SPS and 
TBT Agreements , we seek not blanket exemptions from commitments . Rather, we seek to 
operationalize the collective commitments of the WTO Membership already contained in these two 
Agreements . We also proceed from the premise that S&D is not confined to transitional periods, 
capacity building and technical assistance . It should be intrinsically embedded in the trade rules and 
measures Members adopt to allow policy flexibility to developing countries and LDCs to achieve their 
development objectives, and under conditions of certainty. Ultimately,  our objective is ensuring 
stability, predictability and transparency in the implementation of existing S&D provisions, thereby 
strengthening a core area of the multilateral trading system  (MTS)  in favour and benefit of the 
interests of developing countrie s, including LDCs. In this regard, allow us to recall and remind 
Members of the following key principles that guide our approach to the ASPs towards ensuring that 
S&D provisions become more precise, effective and operational, in line with the negotiating m andate 
of the CTD SS.  First, S&D for developing  countries  and LDCs is an integral part of the MTS 
architecture and a treaty -embedded right. Second , the mandate under paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Declaration  - which was reaffirmed at MC12  - is to review S&D provisions under existing 
covered Agreements with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective 
and operational. The G90 believes that the SPS and TBT ASPs we are tabling today provide the 
necessary clarity and certainty to the e xisting S&D provisions in these respective Agreements . 
Addressing the deficiencies  we outline in our submission and introducing the remedies in the textual 
proposals would significantly contribute towards advancing the developmental aspirations of 
developi ng countries, including LDCs, while enhanc ing the resilience of their economies and their 
integration into international trade . TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 4 - 
 
  10. As reported in our submission, SPS and TBT measures together are by far the most common 
non-tariff measures (NTMs) affecting tra de. Of all the NTMs that are notified to the WTO, 
TBT measures account for 57.6% and SPS measures for 37.6% . Together, this accounts for a 
combined 95.2%. Meanwhile, producers are currently bombarded by a proliferation of SPS and TBT 
measures  of ever-increasing complexity which have , or threaten to , disproportionately affect exports 
from developing countries, including LDCs. Research conducted by the United Nations Conference 
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) also reveals that developed countries apply sign ificantly more 
SPS and TBT measures than developing countries, with data revealing that developing countries and 
LDCs bear the highest incidence of costs due to such measures. The scale of the informational, 
compliance -related and procedural costs that exp orts from developing countries and LDCs , have to 
contend with alters in real terms their relative global competitiveness. Owing to a number of factors  
– not least the lack of resources or technical capacity  – developing countries and LDCs are largely 
standards -takers . They play an insignificant role in the development of international standard s, 
including in the development of standards in their markets of interests. The lack of infrastructure in 
developing countries  and LDCs to comply, effectively demonstrate compliance or prove equivalence , 
is a significant barrier to their exports, particularly to developed country markets.  It is in light of the 
above challenges combined that the G90 has proposed in Annex 1 and 2  of our submission , the 
S&D improvements premised on the following core elements. T he first element  concerns longer time 
periods for developing countries and LDCs facing capacity constraints to provide comments on 
proposed SPS measures, technical regulations or standards by a developed country, or developing 
countries in a position to do  so. The G90 therefore calls for proper and early consultations on 
measures to be implemented. In these consultations, developed Members shall consider the status 
of a developing or LDC Member 's capacity to comply with the measure . This would includ e 
techn ology, human resources and infrastructure needs, with a view to exploring solutions which 
neither restrict nor preclude the participation of developing country Members and LDC Members in 
the market in question.  
11. The second element concerns longer time frames for compliance . This would be  accompanied 
by capacity building and technical assistance by a developed country to developing countries and 
LDCs to ensure no or minimal disruptions to their exports. Some of the measures require significant 
infrastruc ture outlay s and systems that may not be readily available to developing countries. Where 
there are real constraints , this  would require the consideration of alternative  and less restrictive 
measures  or longer time periods  to enable compliance. A disruptio n in exports has significant 
implications and means loss of jobs  and income . It can result in the decimation of key export sectors 
for developing countries. The third element concerns c ompensatory adjustment support by 
developed countries to adversely affe cted developing countries and LDCs in case of urgent 
implementation of SPS or TBT measures . This would be  to assist them to maintain their market 
share in developed countries' export markets and support their quality infrastructural capabilities to 
meet su ch measures. The G90 stands ready to provide any clarifications on the textual proposals on 
the two ASPs and looks forward to focused technical engagements on them.  On process, we would 
like to recall that the work programme agreed to as proposed by the G9 0 at the last CTD  SS meeting 
had envisaged that discussions would indeed be necessary outside the confines of formal meetings. 
In this regard, we welcome the Chair's  appointment of Singapore as facilitator of negotiations on 
the SPS and TBT ASPs we have tabled today. We are confident that such a process will yield positive 
outcomes and will be conducive for the kind of substantive and technical discussions necessary t o 
progress our work. The G90 assures both  the Chair and Singapore , as well as Members , of its support 
and constructive engagement and reiterates its commitment to engage in good faith in these 
negotiations.  
12. The representative of Egypt  delivered the follow ing statement:   
13. We are gather ed today to discuss one of the most important issues relating to development. 
We are fortunate that Members are ready to discuss and negotiate  development . I believe that all 
of us are sincere when it comes to our commitment to respect ing the mandate that we have and to 
resolve this important issue that has been on the table for decades. I am not going to add much to 
what my colleague from South Africa said, because his intervention was comprehensive. Let me  
congratulate the Chair on the way the process  is being led , including with re spect to the idea of 
appointing facilitators . I appreciate the appointment of Singapore as facilitator on the 
ASPs concerning the SPS and TBT Agreements . We will be ready to be work with the facilitator , and 
our engagement will be productive. I would also l ike to refer to Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement . 
When  countries – especially developed countries – prepare or apply SPS measures, they have to 
take into consideration the special needs of developing countries and LDCs. This is a very simple TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 5 - 
 
  and straightforward  provision , yet it is not implemented. Egypt raised this matter  20 years ago  and 
asked Members to reflect this commitment  in the body of notifications. However , this never 
happened. There are therefore a lot of things th at we can implement and make happen if we have 
the will. On the G90 proposals presented by South Africa, Egypt fully supports the G90 submission 
on the S&D  provisions in the SPS and TBT Agreements . These two textual proposals are just the 
beginning of a series of submissions that we are going to put on the table for the CTD  SS to discuss. 
We believe that the G90 ASPs are of utmost importance for developing countries to effectively 
address the significant negative implications of measures ad opted by developed countries on exports 
from developing countries.  Allow me to present evidence highlighting the importance of S&D 
provisions in these Agreements and their impact on developing countries. Firstly, as mentioned by 
my colleague from South Afr ica, SPS and TBT measures account for a substantial proportion of NTMs  
affecting trade. According to data from the WTO, TBT measures constitute 57.6% and SPS measures 
37.6% of all notified NTMs.  Together, t hey account for more than 90% of all NTMs. I am repeating 
the numbers to show Members how significant the se measures have become. This demonstrates the 
widespread impact of these measures on international trade, especially trade from developing 
countries and LDCs.  
14. Research conducted by UNCTAD reveals tha t developed countries apply a significantly higher 
number of SPS and TBT measures compared to developing countries. This disparity places a 
disproportionate burden on developing countries, particularly LDCs, as they face higher compliance 
costs and limited  resources for meeting these measures. These challenges negatively affect their 
ability to compete globally. The complexity and proliferation of SPS and TBT measures pose 
significant barriers for developing countries. Lack of resources, technical capacity and infrastructure 
further exacerbate their challenges. As a result, developing countries often find themselves as 
standards -takers rather than active participants in the development of international standards. This 
hampers their market access and undermin es their competitiveness. To illustrate the practical 
implications, consider the case of African agricultural exports. Many African countries rely heavily on 
agricultural products for export. However, stringent SPS measures imposed by developed countries  
– such as maximum residue limits, packaging requirements and certification procedures  – create 
obstacles that restrict their access to lucrative markets. The inability to comply with these measures 
effectively hinders the export potential of developing coun tries and LDCs, leading to lost economic 
opportunities and stunted development.  Furthermore, the lack of policy flexibility in the 
implementation of SPS and TBT measures has adverse effects on the resilience of developing 
countries' economies. Rapid and ur gent implementation of measures without adequate adjustment 
support can lead to disruptions in exports and severe economic consequences. S&D provisions  – 
such as longer time periods for compliance, capacity building and technical assistance  – can alleviate 
these challenges and enable developing countries to adapt and maintain their market share. In 
conclusion, the S&D provisions in the SPS and TBT Agreemen ts play a crucial role in mitigating the 
negative impacts of measures adopted by developed countries on exports from developing countries. 
The evidence presented demonstrates the disproportionate burden faced by developing countries, 
especially LDCs, and t he need for policy flexibility and support to enhance their trade opportunities. 
Egypt strongly advocates for the adoption of the G90 proposals to strengthen S&D provisions, 
thereby promoting fair and inclusive international trade practices.  
15. The represent ative of Uganda , on behalf of the LDC Group,  delivered the following statement:   
16. The LDC Group thanks you for convening this meeting to discuss the G90 proposals on the 
SPS and TBT Agreements . The Group would like to take this opportunity to congratulate S outh Africa 
for presenting the proposals on the agenda and to echo its intervention on behalf of the G90. The 
Group would also like to express its commitment to the MTS, which offers collective opportunities 
through the flexibilities provided in the WTO Ag reements  to address the capacity constraints faced 
by developing countries , and LDCs in particular. Through paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration and 
paragraph 2 of the MC12 Outcome Document, Ministers instructed Members to review S&D 
provisions in the covered Agreements with a view to strengthening them and making them more 
precise, more effective and more operational. Being mainly  commodity exporters, LDCs face a 
proliferation of SPS and TBT measures based on environmental protection, sustainability and health, 
among others. Unfortunately, they do not have quality infrastructure , and the costs of compliance 
as well as procedures and information are ofte n extremely high. This leads to additional costs that 
exporters are not always able to bear. The cumulative effect is the undermining of the potential 
benefits that unilateral preferential arrangements and preferential trade agreements were intended 
to pro vide to LDCs and other developing countries, thus limiting these countries'  capacit ies to 
leverage trade as a means for economic growth, poverty reduction and sustainable development. It TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 6 - 
 
  is therefore clear that , in the absence of the necessary support, sta ndards, technical regulations and 
SPS measures can constitute significant obstacles to the access of exports from developing countries 
and LDCs to major international markets.  The LDC Group is of the view that incorporating the 
flexibilities contained in the SPS and TBT proposals into SPS and TBT measures could ensure 
certainty, transparency and stability in the development and implementation of measures that affect 
LDCs' export s. Thus, developed Members must take into account the needs of developing countries 
and LDCs in the development of new SPS and TBT measures by granting them longer periods to 
react – as well as  the technical assistance necessary to bring them into conformi ty, and 
compensation when their exports are affected by new SPS and TBT measures. In conclusion, the 
LDC Group invites Members to engage in negotiations on these two G90 proposals. By doing so, 
they will contribute to making WTO rules clearer and more pred ictable. This will help facilitate the 
effective integration of developing countries and LDCs into the MTS. The LDC Group congratulates 
Singapore on its designation as facilitator on these two proposals . We look forward to a constructive 
engagement in the weeks ahead.  
17. The representative of European Union  delivered the following statement:  
18. Like the delegations before me , the European Union would like to deliver a single statement 
under this agenda item. In line with the sequencing discussed at the previous meeting in 
March  2023, and the G90 communication announced there with the proposals on SPS and TBT, the 
European Union is pleased to return to the CTD SS today. We thank the G90 for their recent 
communication  contain ing the SPS and TBT proposals. I have listened carefully to the previous 
speakers and would like to thank them for their statements. The European Union would welcome 
that the proponents present and explain the new proposals in detail, especially explaining the 
differences in the new pro posals from previous submissions. The European Union is open to discuss 
how to facilitate practical solutions to specific challenges faced by developing countries, including 
LDCs, in the implementation of the SPS and TBT Agreements . We are  interested and w ant to see if 
progress is possible on the proposals on SPS and TBT by looking at ways in which the substantive 
G90 concerns could be met. For instance, the European Union would consider early -stage 
consultation on a case -by-case basis. It would be interesting to discuss in practical terms how to 
improve specific trade concerns in the case of procedures in the TBT and SPS Committees. 
The European Union would be ready to disc uss the possibility of making technical assistance and 
capacity building more targeted and tailor -made . This would be to offer particular help to LDCs , and 
other developing countries with specific needs and capacity constraints , to get early warning of 
notified measures. On SPS in particular, the G90 proposal aims at mandatory provisions to ensure 
certainty, transparency and stability in the development and implementation of SPS measures that 
impact the export s of developing countries, including LDCs. The European Union would like to 
highlight that the SPS Agreement already contains specific S&D provisions . Therefore, in order to 
respond to this suggestion, we would welcome more practical details.  
19. I would like to make a further point on SPS. In the framework  of the work programme 
established by the MC12 SPS Declaration, a special working group was created . This working group  
discussed how to increase the participation of  and the support for the special needs of developing 
countries, including LDCs , in the dev elopment and application of SPS measures. We believe  that it 
would be useful to listen to the findings and recommendations prepared by this group as well. 
Referring to the previous CTD SS  meeting , we would welcome continued discussions with Members 
on sett ing up a seminar or workshop. We note that, within the SPS Committee, a workshop recently 
took place on "Facilitating safe trade: Standards and Trade Development Facility ( STDF ) solutions 
to strengthen SPS capacity in developing and least developed countries ". We would therefore  
welcome a seminar or a workshop to focus on TBT , as a start, that could ideally take place as early 
as possible in the autumn, so that it can be well pre pared . This seminar  or workshop would be an 
occasion for developing countries, including LDCs, to explain  their specific needs and capacity 
constraints in detail . It would be an opportunity  to invite experts from the WTO and other 
international organizatio ns, as well as external stakeholders  – including the private sector, for 
instance. In addition, the workshop could serve to consider what possible role the WTO Secretariat 
could play to support developing countries with the ePing system , or a version of th at system  further 
adjusted  to the needs  of the  concerned countries . Of course, we w ould expect any improvements 
related to ePing to be relevant for SPS purposes as well. We would like to see if these discussions 
could identify those issues where progress is possible. This would require pragmatism and a focus 
on responding to the real needs o f those countries that face particular difficulties in integrating in to 
the global trading system. We have already sensed a general appetite for more evidence -based 
decision -making. Let me finish by noting that  the Chair's  statement on the issue of facilit ators TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 7 - 
 
  includ ed the information that a colleague from Singapore will take  on the role of facilitator on SPS 
and TBT issues. The European Union can accept Singapore as facilitator on these matters . I wonder 
if the colleague from Singapore has already been id entified  and is in the room to take the floor .  
20. The representative of Norway  delivered the following statement:   
21. I would like to thank the Chair for the good leadership, and South Africa for presenting the 
proposals on TBT and SPS on behalf of the G90. We welcome the submission. It is in line with the 
mandate our Ministers gave us in paragraph 2 of the MC12 Outcome D ocument. We acknowledge 
the difficulties faced by exporters in developing countries and LDCs in complying with technic al 
regulations and standards. We acknowledge how this affects exports by developing countries and 
LDCs. As my Ambassador clearly said at the previous CTD SS  meeting , development is at the core 
of the WTO. Trade is a mean s for development. Ensuring development and better integration in the 
MTS for developing and LDC Members alike is beneficial for all . This is  not only in terms of solidarity 
and bettering the trust levels in this organization, but also in economic terms and  in terms of long-
term profits. Norway will engage constructively on each of the ten ASPs, with a view to exploring 
the potential  for, and hopefully achiev ing, concrete results . I would now like to turn  to the content. 
I know that this will be discussed  more in the informal sessions, but I would like to make  some 
points here as well.  
22. We firstly welcome the focus on a few proposals at a time. All moderations and clarifications 
of the previous proposals are received with thanks. We also view positively the suggestions in the 
first provision of both Annexes, regarding early notification and an exten sion of the deadline for 
developing countries to comment. Prior to the Tenth WTO Ministerial Conference ( MC10 ) in 2015, 
Norway was prepared to be able to extend this deadline to 90 days, which is in line with the current 
proposal. However, regarding provis ion 2 and the part concerning  notifications in provision 1, 
Norway’s notifications are standardized through the European Economic Area Agreement. Therefore, 
on notification procedures, careful consultations with Members are needed.  In the third provision i n 
both Annexes, on the suggested longer phasing -in time for regulations  – or as it says , "allows scope 
for phased introduction"  – this is something we should be able to consider. We appreciate the 
G90's moderating wording here. Regarding the part of the th ird provision in both Annexes on 
financial assistance, we acknowledge that such assistance is certainly relevant in the areas of SPS 
and TBT . However,  the fact is that national grants are up to our politicians to decide, on a year -to-
year basis, and unfortunately not something for us to contractually bind in a WTO  agreement. 
Therefore, softer wording is needed. In the context of SPS, we suggest that bringing forward the 
STDF  – which was created precisely for this purpose  – is a better direction. I would also like to echo 
my colleague from the European Union on being open to mak ing capacity building and technical 
assistance more tailored to specific needs . Lastly, the SPS and TBT Agreements do have S&D 
provisions. These are provisions 9 and 10  in the SPS Agreement,  and provision 2.12 in the TBT 
Agreement. I wonder how aware Members are of these  provisions , and whether the se provisions are 
used. If not, why ? We suggest that this is something that should be carefully investigated in the 
Monitoring Mechanism or in the informal sessions on the SPS and TBT  proposals. While we agree 
that the actual negotiations should be between WTO  Members only, we do support Members' call for 
a wider participation of other stakeholders in informal sessions  – specifically  NGOs , the private sector  
and exporters  – to shed light on the needs in practice from different perspectives .  
23. The representative of  Canada  delivered the following statement :  
24. Canada thanks the G90 for their paper on the ten ASPs,  including the more recent paper on 
the SPS and TBT Agreements. Canada sincerely understands the difficulties faced by exporters in 
developing countries, and LDCs in particular, when it comes to complying with technical regulations 
and standards. Canada is flexible with the idea of having discussions to better understand the 
challenges of meeting SPS requirements and technical regulations . We sho uld remain open and  
focused on solutions that would concretely help to address those challenges. In that vein, we think 
it would be important to ensure our discussions include the views and experiences of organi zations 
that work in this area and from expor ters themselves, for example. We also think that it is important 
to continue work in the SPS and TBT Committees around these issues and ensure we do not duplicate 
efforts. Finally, we believe that the SPS and TBT Agreements currently provide rights and fle xibilities, 
which could be more fully explored  – including with regard to  requesting guidance, advice or 
comment period extensions as needed. As such, we would welcome discussions around how the 
Agreements could currently help address the concerns expresse d. We want to reiterate that we TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 8 - 
 
  understand the concerns raised by the G90 and remain open to discussions that will concretely 
advance some of the problems identified in the proposals.  
25. The representative of Angola  delivered the following statement:  
26. Angola aligns itself with statement made by Uganda on behalf of LDC  Group  and thanks 
South  Africa for the introductory remarks on the G90 proposals. We understand that SPS measures 
aim to protect the health of humans, plants and animals  - while TBT measures ensure product quality 
and safety. However, the COVID -19 crisis showed how these meas ures are profoundly 
interconnected in safety domains and how the misuse of these Agreements can quickly evolve 
towards protectionis m. They can lead to the shielding of domestic production from fair world trade 
competition and can  hurt profoundly the most vulnerable economies and societies in the areas of 
agricultural trade. Of all the NTMs that are notified to the WTO, TBT measures account for 57.6% 
and SPS measures account for 37.6%. Therefore, there is an urgent need to clarify the application 
of pertinent S&D provisions to avoid an asymmetric misuse of these Agreements that damage the 
LDCs' and other developing countries' efforts to recover from the pandemic crisis and similar global 
economic downturns. Angola has noted that Articles 9.2 and 10 of the SPS Agreement have regularly 
confronted developing countries, particularly LDCs , with c hanging regulations and stringent SPS 
measures. The G90 proposal  aims to clarify the concept of a reasonable tim eframe, which should be 
at least 12 months for LDCs and developing countries facing capacity constraints before adopt ing 
the measure . The current timeframe of six months for compliance is insufficient. Likewise, there is 
an urgent need to clarify Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement, which requires Members to take account 
of the financial and trade needs of LDCs and other developing count ries in the preparation and 
application of technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures to ensure that 
TBT measures do not create obstacles to their exports. Finally, Angola stresses the urgen cy to clarify 
pertinent S&D provisions relative to SPS and TBT that have become key demands to support LDCs 
and developing countries in the post -pandemic global economy, and for which fair trade 
opportunities and recovery are strategic assets for their development retrieval. Angola thanks 
Singa pore for accepting to facilitate the process .  
27. The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement:   
28. I was intending to introduce myself at the end of the meeting, but I was called for th by my 
colleague from the European Union. I therefore seek your kind indulgence to interrupt 
Members'  discussion on the G90 proposals  to take some time to give a brief introduction. Singapore 
would like to thank Members for their nomination and the confidence placed in us. We are h onoured 
to take up the role in assisting the Chair by  facilitat ing the technical discussions on the important 
topics of SPS and TBT. We take note of Members' call for evidence -based discussions to involve 
technical experts, including relevant external stak eholders as well as experts from the Secretariat. 
We will regularly keep the Chair a nd the Committee informed of the technical discussions. Looking 
ahead, Singapore is of the view that we should start consultations to hear Members'  views on how 
the technic al discussions should be organized. We will work with the Secretariat to circulate an 
invitation open to all Members and would welcome interested Members that respond to the invitation. 
Following the consultations, we plan to report back to the CTD SS with  a proposed way forward with 
the aim of embarking on substantive discussions on the proposals as soon as possible. We count on 
your support .  
29. The representative of China  delivered the following statement:  
30. I would like to thank South Africa for their introduction of the proposals on behalf of G90. 
I would also like to thank  Singapore for serving as f acilitator . Development is one of the central 
agendas at the WTO. As colleagues from South Africa, Egypt and A ngola said, SPS and TBT measures 
account for more than 90% of NTMs. According to the technical assistance questionnaire in 
preparation of the Biennial Technical Assistance and Training  Plan, SPS and TBT are also identified 
as the highest priority for trade -related technical assistance by the respondents from all regions. 
China generally concurs with the main ideas of the text ual proposal by the G90. It is necessary to 
ensure that SPS and TBT measures in key markets do not further marginalize developing coun tries 
in international trade owing to their limited capacities. The WTO needs to play its role in this regard. 
As the largest developing Member , China is committed to bridging the North -South divide through 
strengthened South -South cooperation. China is al so willing to work with other WTO Members to 
advance the discussion s through formal and informal meetings.  TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 9 - 
 
  31. The representative of  India delivered the following statement:  
32. India would like to compl iment the G90 for their submission in document JOB/TN/CTD/3 , 
containing two Agreement -specific textual proposals relating to the SPS and TBT Agreements. This 
submission builds on the earlier submission presented in document JOB/TN/CTD/2. We would also 
like to thank South Africa for introducing the proposa ls. India agrees that th ese submission s aim at 
striking the right balance between the pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives and the protection 
of the gains from trade of developing countries, including LDCs , by ensuring that SPS and 
TBT measures in key markets do not further marginalize developing countries in international trade 
owing to their limited capacities. TBT and SPS measures account for the bulk of NTMs . As analy zed 
by UNCTAD, the estimated ad valorem impact of SPS and TBT requi rement s is significantly higher 
in respect of such measures by the developed countries . This  result s in much higher cost s on the 
trade of developing countries , including LDCs. TBT and SPS measures are rapidly increasing and 
becoming more and more complex . They impose hugely burdensome , and at times unreasonable , 
compliance requirements. Numerous examples can be found in the n ewer unilateral measures 
implemented in the name of the environment or sustainability. These measures are seriously 
threatening the ex ports from developing countries. Developing countries , and particularly LDCs , lack 
the capacity, technology, expertise and other wherewithal to comply with these complex 
requirements. In this context, the G90 proposals  – and their intended objectives on S& D under the 
SPS and TBT Agreements  – are all the more relevant to safeguard the exports of developing countries 
and LDCs. The proposal s by the G90 are measured, reasonable and calibrated. India fully agrees 
with the rationale behind the proposal s and supports them. With this assertion, we shall participate 
constructively in further discussions on text going forward. We would also like to put forward our 
view about the facilitator process. We appreciate and agree with the idea of the appointment of 
facilitators and  having  facilitator -led discussions. We would like to thank Singapore for agreeing to 
be the first  facilitator . We feel that t hese discussions will be useful , and we assure constructive 
engagement. It is encouraging as to the direction Singapore has proposed. Going forward , we are 
sure the facilitators would provide beforehand  the process and roadmap they wish  to take , while 
consulting Members  – includin g if at any point they contemplate any external stakeholder  
engagement , for example  in informal seminars and workshop s. 
33. The representative of  Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
34. I would like to thank the proponents for having s ubmitted their proposals on SPS and TBT. 
Switzerland is ready to engage in this discussion in accordance with the mandate contained in the 
MC12 Outcome Document. We note that in the past, the proponents have introduced very similar, 
if not identical, propo sitions. In our view, one reason why Members could not agree to solutions in 
the past was the fact that the evidence  base was sometimes unsatisfactory. We hope that this time 
around we can have a better and more fact s-based discussion. Allow me to share some preliminary 
thoughts. First, we agree with several elements of the G90 submission. One point that stuck in 
paragraph 1 5 is that consultation processes leading to SPS and TBT measures need to be transparent 
and inclusive. We also acknowledge the fact that compliance with such measures can be resource 
consuming . Second, given that developing countries constitute some of the  biggest export markets 
for goods from other developing countries, we would like to ask the following question. Why does 
the G90 only aim at procedural changes in developed countries, and not also in other developing 
countries, especially those that are la rge export destinations? In our view, this is an inconsistency 
that considerably undermines the economic reasoning behind the proposal.  On Annex 1, 
paragraph  1, we note that according to a recommendation of the SPS Committee, all Members 
should provide a 6 0-day comment period. Secretariat  statistics show that the 60 days have become 
common practice. We would be pleased to learn about solid, existing evidence that today’s practice 
is not satisfying, or where it has failed to meet the objective. Could the pro ponents give some 
insights into this question? On paragraph 2, we note that some WTO Members already apply this 
principle. This is a passage where we wonder whether such a procedural requirement may also be 
of benefit for the G90 members if they were adopt ed in target developing countries' markets, 
especially those that constitute large export markets . On Annex 2, our remarks are conceptually 
very similar to the ones for Annex 1. We are also ready to share further considerations on the 
proposal, notably on paragraph 3 , in the appropriate framework that will allow for a substantive, 
technical discussion. Switzerland supports the process outlined at the outset of our meeting, 
including the appointment of facilitators who will be able to convene informal meetings and 
workshops. Allow me to conclude by once again thanking the proponents and assuring them of our 
engagement in this process.  TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 10 - 
 
  35. The representative of  the United States  delivered the following statement:  
36. I thank  the Chair for facilitating th e present meeting of the CTD SS,  as well as the 
representative of Singapore for agreeing to take on the role of facilitator.  Members  have been 
working to advance this development agenda for a while. We are open to evaluating the flexibilities 
and derogations where they make sense. I am happy to note that my colleague from South Africa 
highlighted that the  proponents are not looking for  a blanket waiver. I think that is a common 
starting zone. The United States takes note of  the G90's submission on SPS and TBT. We are still 
reviewing it in capital, but we can offer the following initial comments for your consideration. We 
strongly suppor t the integration of all countries into the global system relating to agricultural trade, 
international standards development processes and good regulatory practices. We also recognize 
the specific SPS and TBT challenges faced by developing countries. Thes e challenges have been the 
focus of many activities in the SPS Committee and its related assistance program mes, such as the 
STDF  and the SPS courses. The y have also been the focus of initiatives in the TBT Committee  which 
highlight the active engagement of  developing countries, including LDCs, in using TBT e -tools like 
e-Ping; transparency champions ' program mes and TBT enquiry points. Specifically, the 
TBT Committee is working on how to develop a model comment format to help jump -start the 
comment process. This work is underway in the TBT Committee and will be discussed at the 
June 2023 meeting. We understand that some developing countries such as Kenya and Namibia are 
preparing guidance on how to develop effective comments . The SPS and TBT Committees enjoy 
some of the widest participation and engagement by developing countries in the WTO Committees , 
including regular attendance by many subject matter experts from capitals. However, w e think that 
there is some incongruity between what is being discussed in the SPS and TBT Committees, and 
what is being discussed here  in the CTD SS.  So hopefully, we co uld bring those experts into these 
conversations as we go forward with the program me that has been  outlined. We encourage the G90 
to continue to draw from the good work of the SPS and TBT Committees of showing developing 
countries ' competencies rather than  invoking blanket exceptions and derogations. We continue to 
support the inclusion of other stakeholders and thank the Chair  for highlighting that process . We 
think that real world experiences would be beneficial to these discussions, and we look forward t o 
engagement with NGOs  and businesses. We stand ready to work with the CTD  SS, the SPS and 
TBT Committees, and all other participants.  
37. The representative of Colombia  delivered the following statement:  
38. My statement will be very brief. First, I would like to highlight the work of the G90, which we 
value, and which has brought proposals and alternatives to central issues not only for the LDCs, but 
also for developing countries as a whole. Second, I would l ike to mention that these proposals have 
the advantage of making concrete proposals in black and white on substantive matters and issues 
that we  developing countries face . These include SPS and TBT measures , which can create 
unnecessary export restrictions  for our countries, thus jeopardizing revenue for certain sectors, 
regions and entire countries. Finally, I would like to mention that Colombia is continuing to analy ze 
these alternatives and we hope to make contributions during the discussion.  
39. The representative of United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:   
40. I would like to thank the Chair for the momentum and focus you are bringing to this 
longstanding issue. I would also like to thank the G90 for th e updated paper, and the practical nex t 
steps outlined in the  previous  submission. Furthermore, I would like to thank Singapore for agreeing 
to facilitate future discussions. This will be an important role, and I am confident they will do it 
expertly. On the substance of the latest proposal, I  will be brief, as my capital is still reviewing the 
detail s. I expect most technical discuss ions to take place  in the facilitated sessions, which I will say 
more on in a moment. It is important to say up front that the TBT and SPS Agreements provide the 
framework for all Members to take measures necessary to protect human, animal and plant health . 
The United Kingdom cannot agree to any proposals that weaken our ability to do this or our 
associated rights and obligations under the Agreements . We therefore welcome the 
acknowledgement in the G90 's paper of the importance of maintaining all Members ' rights under 
these Agreements , and the importance of the Agreements themselves. As we have said before, we 
think discussions need to be evidence -based, and that S&D needs to be tailored to the specific needs 
of individual Members. On the process, we think  that the idea of facil itated sessions is a good one, 
and we look forward to engaging. We believe  that the facilitated sessions w ould benefit from 
considering relevant discussions taking place in the respective Committees. For example, in addition 
to standing agenda items in the  Committees on S&D and technical assistance and cooperation, we TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 11 - 
 
  note that conversations are underway on related themes under the SPS Declaration thematic 
group  5. These discussions are  exploring how to increase participation of and support for the special 
needs of developing and LDC Members in the development and application of SPS measures , and in 
particula r to increase awareness of and sensitivity to the impacts of SPS measures on the export 
possibilities of such Members.  
41. We also agree with others on the importance of including external experts from international 
organi zations , as well draw ing on the expert ise within the WTO 's Committee Secretar iats. We 
support comments about the importance of including business perspectives and experiences  in these 
evidence session s. The facilitated discussions may also benefit from having the relevant SPS and 
TBT delegates  in the room. Discussing the two Agreements separately may be a helpful way forward.  
We welcomed the proposal in the G90 's last paper to hold a series of dedicated evidence sessions, 
and we hope that is what the first facilitated sessions will focus on. A few examples of the types of 
questions it may be helpful to explore in these evidence sessions might relate to what 
Members ' experiences are in using the existing flexibilities in the SPS and TBT Agreements . We are 
interested in the experiences of Members who have tried to make use of these , including  the ratio 
of requests for additional commen ts or implementation time that are constructively accommodated 
versus those that are rejected. As a practical suggest ion, I wonder if the Secretariat could perhaps 
list all of the existing flexibilities within the Agreements . We could then have a discussion about how 
each one is taken up and applied . Secondly, an overview and stock -take of the technical assistance 
curren tly available from the Secretariat would also be helpful. We have seen that targeted technical 
assistance, such as workshops and training, can facilitate Member’s participation  – not only in the 
TBT Committee processes, but also by enhanc ing Members' ability to raise and address specific trade 
concerns with the appropriate mechanisms. We would be interested in exploring with other Members 
to what extent we can better understand the technical assistance available specifically on  TBT and 
SPS and how best to r espond to those needs . Perhaps that can facilitate Members ' use of existing 
flexibilities within the Agreements . Finally, I would like to ask how we would define an LDC  Member 
or developing country Member facing capacity constraints. That is, h ow might we move to a definition 
of capacity constraints. These are just some initial thoughts on how th e facilitat ed process could 
work, and the type s of questions that will be useful to explore. The United Kin gdom  welcomes the 
constructive approach that Members are taking and stands ready to engage in the facilitated 
discussions.  
42. The representative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:  
43. Pakistan would first like to state that while crises  – whether man -made or natural  – have 
adverse impacts on social and economic development in any Member country, the developing and 
LDC Members are more vulnerable and experience devastation of larger magnitudes from which 
recovery is a harder and longer process. The polycrises of toda y make it even more important to 
arrive at an understanding on the implementation of effective and operatio nal S&D  provisions , which 
are treaty -embedded rights in the WTO and were envisioned as an acknowledgement of the fact that 
Member s require implementational standards which reflect their economic development. With 
respect to the G90's ASPs, Pakistan underst ands that the proposal s contribut e to the fulfillment of  
the mandate in paragraph  44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration  and are a genuine attempt to 
strengthen S&D  provisions  to make them more precise, effective, and operational. The proposals 
also consti tute a potential major step forward in addressing the asymmetries of economic 
development around the globe. Pakistan is of the view that it is high time that the Membership 
converges on the understanding that S&D must not be confined merely to transitional  periods and 
technical assistance and capacity building . It should  also be reflected in the WTO's trade rules to 
allow for much -needed policy flexibility for developing and LDC  Members to achieve their 
development objectives, and under conditions of certai nty. As for the proposals contained in 
document JOB/TNC/110 on the application of the SPS and TBT Agreements, Pakistan acknowled ges 
the significance of both Agreements in Members ' pursuit of legitimate health and safety objectives. 
However, it also needs to be understood that compliance -related costs, uncertainty caused by 
immediate measures, and lack of information and technical know -how in developing and 
LDC Members  adversely aff ect the ir participation in global trade. In order to avoid these undesirable 
outcomes from the use of legitimate TBT and SPS measures, Pakistan finds tenable the textual 
proposals in Annex  1 and Annex  2 of JOB/TNC/110 . Pakistan looks forward to  future subm ission s by 
the G90 on the other ASPs and intends to participate and contribute to this Member -driven process 
in the future as well . TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 12 - 
 
  44. The representative of Korea  delivered the following statement:  
45. Echoing others, Korea thanks the G90 for their latest proposal, and for their continuing efforts 
to strengthen the WTO trading system. We fully understand that meeting SPS and TBT requirements 
can be one of the most technically challenging tasks for develo ping countries, particularly as we are 
observing an uptick in very technical trade measures that seek to promote environmental and other 
policy goals. We therefore look forward to discussions , including in the workshops that 
the European  Union and others h ave mentioned, and stand ready with an open mind to working 
towards addressing the legitimate concerns of developing countries. At the same time, we believe 
that conducting those discussions in a way that minimizes forum duplic ation and engages the experts  
who understand SPS and TBT measures, in addition to experts with a deep appreciation for the 
importance of development , is the way forward. Regarding substance, we suggest utilizing to the 
full extent the S&D flexibilities that are already inscribed into the WTO system. The SPS Agreement 
allows for longer time frames for compliance under certain conditions. However, obligating countries 
to provide developing countries no less than one year for compliance risks undermining the ability 
of countries to adopt health measures in a timely manner. We believe that no government would be 
in a position to do that. We reiterate that Korea is on the same page with the G90 on the rationale 
behind the proposal. Let’s discuss the most viable ways for achieving our s hared goal of delivering 
prompt flexibilities and technical support to developing country exporters, on the basis of identified 
existing difficulties. Lastly, we want to thank Singapore for agreeing to serve as the facilitator of the 
SPS and TBT discussion s. 
46. The representative of Namibia  delivered the following statement:  
47. We thank the Chair for convening this meeting and for the hard work  and commitment  to 
ensure that Members  deliver on this item. We thank the delegation of South Africa for the submission 
on behalf of the G90 . The submission is in line with the mandate given by  Ministers in paragraph 2 
of the MC12 Outcome Document, and with the previous G90 submission considered in  March 2023 . 
From a practical perspective, Members will  appreciate the difficulties of cross -border trade and the 
significant challenges exporters  in LDC s and developing countries face in the implementation of the 
SPS and TBT Agreements . These challenges include  the lack of technical and financial resources, 
limited capacity to meet international standards, and limited access to information and technology . 
In addition, there is often limited bargaining power in international trade negotiations. To address 
these challenges, S&D is key and has to be implemented i n line with paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration . This would involve providing LDC s and developing countries  with greater 
flexibility in implementing the SPS and TBT Agreements , as well as providing them with technical 
and financial assistance to meet international standards. S&D could also involve providing greater 
access to information and communication s technology, which is important especially in terms of 
awareness of the measures that are  implemented by Members. Priority should be given to the core 
elements presented by South Africa . In particular, i t is very important to understand that an exporter 
cannot change the business model with in a 60-day period to comply with  SPS and TBT measures . 
This is not sufficient time for the whole operation of the business. For example, shipping a 
consignment in some countries can take more than three months, which is well beyond the period 
given to Member s to provide comments on a measure. To conclude, we fully endorse and support 
the submission by South Africa  on behalf of the G90 . We also join other Members  in congratulat ing 
Singapore for taking up this important role.   
48. The representative of  the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  delivered the following statement:  
49. My delegation would like to thank the Chair  for the leadership in this process  and for the 
information provided on the facilitators that will be designated for the negotiation process on the 
G90 proposal s. We also wish to thank the delegation of Singapore for accepting the important 
responsibility of facilitator . We must reiterate that S&D is of paramount importance for developing 
countries and LDCs,  which is why we stress the need to pursue negotiations al ong the lines of what 
was agreed in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, as well as in paragraph 2 of the 
MC12 Outcome Document . We thank the G90 for being consistent with its proposals and for 
presenting us with a new version of the proposal s on SPS and TBT measures . We consider that the 
G90 has clearly expressed its concerns regarding the functioning of various provisions in these 
WTO Agreements , with the fundamental objective  of achiev ing the right balance between achiev ing 
legitimate public policy objectives and protect ing the benefits of trade for developing countries. This 
is why my delegation supports the proposals made by the G90, as it did on previous occasions.  TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 13 - 
 
  50. The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
51. Japan thanks the Chair for the initiative to convene this important meeting. We would like to 
express our appreciation for the hard work of the G90 in provid ing the revised proposals for SPS an d 
TBT among the ten ASPs. We also thank South Africa for providing an explanation of these proposals.  
We would like to recall that clarifications on the aim of the SPS and TBT proposal s were already 
exchanged many times before and after the Eleventh WTO Ministerial Conference  (MC11) . I have 
listened carefully to the explanation s of several delegations , including Egypt, Uganda and Namibia. 
It is very important that we know on a factual ba sis what specific measures have reduced exports. 
We would like to have a clear understanding o f what kind of measures have been taken , and  for 
which items. On the assumption that the legitimate regulatory authority of the countries 
implementing the measure s is not restricted, we would like to discuss  – based on the discussions in 
the SPS and TBT committees , and after reaching a common understanding on where the problem 
lies – whether the approach of enacting new rules is indeed appropriate. In order to solv e the actual 
problem, we would like to specify what specific measures should be taken and to whom these 
measures should be applied. As indicated by the Chair in her opening remarks, we appreciate the 
initiative of nominating facilitator s to deepen the evidence -based discussion s. I also thank Singapore 
for taking on the important role of facilitator for the SPS and TBT textual proposals . We would like 
to hold realistic fact -based discussions with experts, including those from other internatio nal 
organizations, to identify where the problem lies . In doing so , Members will  need to properly 
implement paragraph 2 of the MC12 Outcome Document .  
52. The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:   
53. Thanks to the Chair for the leadership in steering this process forward. Thank s also to  
South  Africa for its introduction today. Australia welcomes the G90 's paper on the ten ASPs, including 
the revised paper on the SPS and TBT Agreements. We do not undere stimate the challenges involved 
for developing  countries  and LDCs to participate fully the MTS. We stand ready to participate 
constructively in the proposed discussions and we thank Singapore for agreeing to facilitate the 
discussion on the first two textual proposals . It will be important for these discussions to be 
evidenced -based and focused on the specific challenges facing developing countries and LDCs when 
implementing these Agreements. The involvement of our SPS and TBT leads in these discussions 
will allow us to draw on the technical expertise needed to identify practical and workable solutions 
to the challenges developing countries face. We would also support engagement with key 
stakeholders, including representatives of dev eloping country exporters. Furthermore, we think this 
process would benefit from an early discussion on the existing S&D flexibilities within the SPS and 
TBT Agreements, including whether or not these flexibilities are being used and how the existing 
flexibilities could address the identified concerns . We are  conscious of the instruction delivered by 
our Ministers at MC12 to continue to work on improving the application of S&D in the CTD  SS and 
other relevant venues in the WTO, and to report on progress to the General Council before MC13 . 
We hope , and will certainly play our part to ensure , that  Members are  able to report on constructive 
discussions early next year.  
54. The representative of  the Russian Federation  delivered the following statement:  
55. We thank the  delegation of South Africa for the introduct ory remarks . We also thank the G90 
for the initiative in document JOB/TNC/106, as well as for the communication  in document  
JOB/TNC/110 on SPS and TBT. I would like to emphasize the readiness of Russia to work o n these 
proposals which relate to development issues. My capital is currently study ing the proposals. In 
order to clarify some details of the SPS and TBT aspects of the initiative, we reserve our right to 
submit our questions in wri ting to the co -sponsors of the initiative . We are ready to engage 
constructively in future discussion s. Finally , reacting to the proposal by the Chair, we have no 
objections to the appointment of Singapore as the facilitator for the negotiation process on SPS and 
TBT.  
56. The representative of Sri Lanka  delivered the following statement:   
57. Let me first thank the delegation of South Africa for introducing the new submission  on behalf 
of the G90. The document is indeed very comprehensive . It captures the most essential elements of 
S&D in the  SPS and TBT Agreements that need to be taken into consideration to effectively integrate 
developing countries and LDCs into the MTS. The key policy tools that are highlighted in the TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 14 - 
 
  document can certainly  advance the development aspirations of developing countries , which will 
enhance their participation in global trade. Sri Lanka supports these constructive proposals. Sri 
Lanka has been supporting these ideas from their very inception. Members may recall t hat Sri Lanka 
co-sponsored room document RD/TN/CTD/1 in September 2022, which was presented as an input 
towards discussions at the first CTD SS meeting following MC12. It is high time for us to look into 
ways and means to make S &D provisions more precise, effective and operational for developing 
countries and LDCs. It is important to note that we have a very clear mandate under paragraph 44 
of the Doha Declaration and under MC12 to review  S&D provisions under the covered Agreements 
in order to strengthen th em and make them more precise, effective, and operational. The two key 
features of the G90 proposals on S&D under the TBT and SPS  Agreements  – which are the time-
based elements of S&D and the emphasis on capacity building as a means of safeguarding and 
facilitating the exports of products of interest to developing countries and LDCs  – are very important 
for these countries. As the G90 proposal s suggest , the WTO should be able to provide developing 
countries and LDCs with better tools to overcome their challenges relating to market access. In this 
context, due consideration needs to be given to the three key elements elaborated under item 18 of 
the new submission . These elements  are longer time periods, longer time frames and comp ensatory 
adjustme nt. Sri Lanka also supports the textual suggestions provided in the Annexes of the 
submission  and would like to request all Members to engage constructively in the discussions on the 
proposal s. Finally, we thank the delegation of Singapore  for taking up the role of facilitator to take 
these proposal s forward. We look forward to work ing closely with the delegation of Singapore .  
58. The representative of Nicaragua  delivered the following statement:  
59. Nicaragua welcomes the G90 S&D proposal s on the SPS and TBT Agreements . We appreciate 
the presentation made by the delegation of South Africa and  express appreciation to  the delegation 
of Singapore for facilitat ing the process. We acknowledge the valuable efforts of the G90 to take into 
account the mandate s from the Doha Declaration and the MC12 Outcome Document  on 
S&D provisions as an integral part of the WTO Agreements . We emphasize the importance of the 
communication we are discussing today, since it wil l be the first set of proposals that the G90 table s 
with a view to achieving specific outcomes on S&D before MC13, for the benefit of developing country 
Members including LDCs and small, vulnerable economies  (SVEs) . Our interest is in line with the 
interest expressed in the proposal , since it seeks to further ensure the effective implementation of 
the existing S&D provisions in the application of SPS and TBT measures . We recognize that , without 
the support necessary for the correct application of sta ndards, technical regulations and 
SPS measures, those provisions may become barriers to our exports . Therefore , technical assistance 
and capacity building will continue to be a central pillar for achieving the legitimate objectives 
pursued by  WTO Members . Nicaragua has argued in various forums in favour of strengthening S&D 
that facilitates equitable development while providing better and greater opportunities for our 
exports. At the same time, Nicaragua has defended the MTS in various forums as essential f or 
ensuring that trade measures are in line with commitments under th e Agreements. We call for work 
to continue on these proposals in order to support the equitable development of Members through 
legitimate, effective commitments to S&D provisions that fac ilitate the transformation and 
development of SVEs such as Nicaragua under a fair trading system.  
60. The representative of Brazil  delivered the following statement:  
61. As a developing country interested in this agenda, the Federative Republic of Brazil welcomes 
the G90 proposals, supports this discussion and looks forward to reaching an agreement on this 
topic with other Members. To reach an agreement, Brazil believes we n eed to analy ze the proposals 
more carefully and take these sessions into a more effective, constructive and practical format. First, 
we should bear in mind that the proposals presented here are horizontal, even though they relate 
somehow to other specific Committees. For this reason, we support, whenever necessary, the 
promotion of technical meetings and workshops with experts on each topic referred  to in the 
proposals . Secondly, we cannot commit ourselves to acting as facilitator right now, as the proposal s 
are still under analysis in Brasilia . However, it is very likely that Brazil will be ready and willing to 
act as a facilitator soon, like Singapore , if other Members agree as well.  
62. The representative of South Africa , on behalf of the G90,  delivered the f ollowing statement:  
63. We thank all Members that took the floor today. We are appreciative that Members have taken 
our submission seriously and have d ug into the details therein. We have taken note of the comments , 
the inputs  and the suggestions , as well as the  kinds of questions that Members w ill be seeking to TN/CTD/M/59  
 
- 15 - 
 
  address when discussions take place through the process led by the facilitator. We once again  thank 
Singapore for taking up this task and assure the facilitator  of our cooperation. We look forward t o 
the consultations that will be call ed and will  be constructive in that regard.  
64. The Chairperson  said that  this ha d been a useful interaction. As far as the further informal 
technical discussions on the SPS and TBT proposals were concerned, it would  be for the delegation 
of Singapore to take them forward. The delegation of Singapore would  be in touch with Members 
soon through the Secretariat.  As far as the facilitator was concerned, Members had heard from him 
of his readiness to engage with all delegations  in a constructive way. She counted on all delegations 
to facilitate his work by engaging constructively with him on  the two ASPs he would  be responsible 
for. She went on to say that she would be continuing her informal interactions with Members as well. 
She indicated that d elegations should feel free to contact her to discuss any matter relating to the 
work of the CTD SS. Another formal meeting of the CTD SS would  be convened once the next set of 
textual proposals by the G90 were circulated.  She reiterate d that Members  were dealing with very 
important issues in the CTD SS. The  issues contained in the ten ASPs were not o nly important to the 
proponents and other developing countries but were also systemically important to the organization 
as a whole and the entire Membership. She therefore encourage d all Members to participate actively 
and constructively in the upcoming fa cilitator -led discussions, as well as in future discussions in the 
CTD SS, and to engage in good faith and with an open mind with a view to achieving concrete 
outcomes. She added that she had  noticed that delegations were looking to the substance of the 
G90 proposals. This was a good change. She was confident that, with the right amount of political 
will, delegations could  find solutions to their respective concerns and challenges, and that Members 
would  be able to deliver on the broader political mandate received from Ministers.  
65. The Special Session took note  of all interventions.  
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
66. No matter was raised  under "Other Business" . 
67. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________