RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/WPEC/M/10  
 
6 December 2023  
(23-8273) Page: 1/24 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  
14 November 2023   
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
DEDICATED DISCUSSION ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD AND IN VIRTUAL FORMAT ON 14 NOVEMBER 2023 
Chairperson: H.E. Ms Usha Dwarka -Canabady  (Mauritius), Facilitator of the  
E-commerce Work Programme and the Moratorium  
1.1.  The Chairperson  welcomed delegations and said that, a s was indicated in the convening notice 
of 2 November, the present dedicated session w ould be devoted to the moratorium. She recalled 
that the MC12 Decision had instructed Members to intensify discussions on the moratorium including 
on its scope, definition, and impact. She noted that this issue had been  addressed extensively during 
the year. This was the t hird Dedicated Discus sion on the moratorium.  In previous sessions, Members 
had exchanged views extensively and some ha d submitted papers setting out their different positions 
and understandings. All of this had been captured in the minutes circulated after each meeting. In 
addition, the IGO workshop held in June had a session on the moratorium, where different 
organisations had shared their expertise and had offered Members an additional opportunity for 
discussion. She believe d that the discussions had been intensified, but as  she had mentioned in her 
most recent r eport to the General Council (JOB/GC/368), Members' views remain ed divergent and 
there was no agreement with respect to definition, scope, or impact  of the moratorium .  In response 
to several calls for evidence -based discussions, for the present session,  she wished to start with a 
presentation by the WTO Secretariat on the findings of a report on Digital Trade for Development 
that the WTO ha d undertaken jointly with the IMF, OECD, UNCTAD and the World Bank.  She 
welcomed the Secretariat team that ha d worked on the report and the representatives of the other 
international organizations that ha d joined the present meeting. She then invited Mr Ralph Ossa, 
WTO's Chief economist and Director of the Economic Research and Statistics Division, to introduce 
the report.  
1.2.  The Director of the WTO's Economic Research and Statistics Division  delivered the following 
statement:   
1.3.  I am very happy to present the f indings of our report on digital trade for development and as 
the Ambassador said, and I  am sure you all know, this is a joint report by the IMF, the OECD, 
UNCTAD, the World Bank and of course, the WTO , which is almost ready and will be issued shortly. 
Given that this is a joint report and not a WTO report, I won't deviate too much from the text on the 
slides that we have jointly prepared . So, why did we embark on this joint report? Well, as you all 
know, the digital transformation is having profound effect s. On the one hand, digital technologies 
provide new opportunities to engage in global markets and promote more inclusive growth , but on 
the other  hand, harnessing digitalization for inclusive trade and growth also raises important 
challenges, notably for low-income economies. What seems clear is that international cooperation is 
needed to help bridge the digital divide and put in place enabling regulatory and policy frameworks. 
With the aim of providi ng evidence to inform discussion on these issues , the IM F, OECD , UNCTAD,  
the World Bank and the WTO have joined forces to prepare a report on how to leverage digital trade 
for develop ment.  
1.4.  Let me start by talking about some of the opportunities that digital technologies provide. Digital 
technologies can act as  an engine of growth. They increase the productivity by reducing production 
costs by fostering economies of scale and through  more efficient  financing. They also promote 
innovation by fostering the exchange of ideas. Digital technologies can also underpin the growth of 
all trade, and not just digital trade. They help expand and diversify exports by reducing trade costs, WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 2 - 
 
  including for goods and agriculture. Digitalization can also promote new services -led export  growth 
and more inclusive trade growth. It can  also promote resilience to shocks, for example, exports and 
sectors with more digitally enabled remote work , suffered less from COVID -related local supply 
shocks. At the same time , by disrupting existing processes and business models, digitalization 
creates both opportunities and risks. Let me give you some context on digital trade. And when I say 
digital trade, what I mean is all international trade, digitally ordered and/or digita lly delivered.  
1.5.  As I am sure you know, data on the size of digital trade is incomplete. When we look at digitally 
delivered services exports , they estimated to be 12% of total exports globally in 2022. And over the 
period between 2005 and 2022, they have b een increasing by 8.1 % on average per year, outpacing 
goods trade and also other services exports . Statistics on digitally ordered exports, the other 
component of digital trade , only exist s for a handful of economies. As you can imagine, some 
economies are  more ready than others to take advantage of the opportunities of digital trade . 
Digitally delivered service s exports have been growing and some developing economies , including 
in Africa, such as Ghana, Morocco or South Africa , are strong  perform ers in  digitally delivered 
services. However, Africa's contribution to globally exported digitally delivered services is less than 
1%, while least developed countries contribute 0.2%.  Greater support to scaling up digital capacity 
is needed to ensure inclusive digit al trade . To engage in and benefit from digital trade, it  is crucial 
to have reliable and affordable digital infrastructure and skills. An estimated 5.3 billion people, or 
66% of the world's population, are now able to connect to the internet , twice as man y as ten years 
ago. Yet , that leaves 2.7 billion people offline, most of them in lower or lower middle -income 
econom ies. Although access to the internet is gradually increasing, the high cost of internet services 
continues to hinder internet use and thereb y digital trade in many developing economies. High tariffs 
on ICT imports, restrictions on imports of enabling services, for example, limited competition in 
telecom services , may limit the affordability  and slow the adoption of digital technologies.  
1.6.  International cooperation can help bridge the digital gap by enhancing digital connectivity and 
skills. Financing  digital connectivity is crucial to broaden its reach, enhance its stability and make it 
more affordable for all users. The WTO's Information Technology Agreement (ITA) and regional trade 
agreements  contribute to digital connectivity by eliminating tariffs o n IT products covered by the 
agreements. Many of these products are critical components of the electronic commerce physical 
infrastructure . International cooperation , such as Aid for Trade, e-Trade for All, and also the Digital 
Advisory and Trade Assistanc e (DATA) Fund is helping to improve digital connectivity, s kills and 
capabilities to use digital technologies. ICT -related Aid for Trade commitments increased from USD 
1.5 billion in 2019 to USD 2.2 billion in 2021, representing 4.1% of total Aid for Trade commitments. 
Improving foreign investment policies and trade -related service sector policies are key for attracting 
the private investment needed to develop digital connectivity. International cooperation is 
intensifying efforts to foster investment in di gital skills and bridge knowledge gaps.  
1.7.  On top of this, some governments also need to put in place the regulatory and policy 
environment to promote digital  trade. Digital trade requires a set of policies and regulations to 
provide tools for cross -border t ransactions, enhance  trust in digital markets, promote affordable 
access and enable cross -border deliveries . Laws and regulations that ensure easy entry and exit of 
firms, and an open trade regime play a fundamental role not only in allowing  businesses to access 
digital technologies, but also in enabling them to leverage such tools for greater competitiveness. 
The trade costs reducing effect  of improved connectivity is more than double in middle - and low - 
income economies with an enabling regul atory environment.  
1.8.  Important progress in that direction has been made in that international cooperation 
increasingly covers digital trade. To date, the governance of digital trade -related issues has primarily 
taken place in bilateral and regional trade agreements  (RTAs) . And while 33% of all RTAs have 
explicit provisions related to digital trade, few low -income economies have signed RTAs  with such 
provisions . The WTO Work Programme on E-Commerce, launched in 1998, has provided an 
opportunity to discuss how WTO rules apply to  e-commerce . Ninety  WTO Members are negotiating 
new rules on digital trade -related aspects under the Joint Statement initiative.  
1.9.  The WTO moratorium is, of course , one of the issues attracting attention in the lead up to the 
WTO's 13th Ministerial Conference. The moratorium is the only WTO provision that applies explicitly 
to e-commerce and has been in place since 1998. Additional commitments not to impose customs 
duties on electronic transmissions have also been included in 88 RTAs involving a total of 87 
economies, of which 33 are developing economies. WTO Members ' views about the renewal of the 
moratorium and customs duties differ. Proponents of the moratorium em phasise that the WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 3 - 
 
  commitment has supported a stable and predictable environment for digital trade to thrive. However, 
other WTO M embers have expressed concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the scope of the 
moratorium  and t he definition of electronic transmissions as well as the opportunity cost of the 
moratorium. These include the potential foregone customs revenue and the desire to maintain policy 
space in light of the uncertainty associated with rapid technological change.  
1.10.  Evidence on the effects o f the moratorium focuses on government revenue implications. 
Imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions would reduce relevant digital trade and thereby 
lower its benefits. The extent of the potential loss of customs revenue resulting from the mora torium 
has been estimated to be below 0.33% of overall government revenue on average, with a handful 
of economies reaching up to 1.6% or 3.5% . Uncertainties about its scope and the definition of 
electronic  transmissions which ultimately determine the tax base for the eventual customs duties , 
make it difficult to precisely determine its impact. Assessments of the fiscal implications of the 
moratorium need to consider existing commitments and trade agreements regarding the ability of 
economies to impose tariffs . Contrary to tariffs on physical goods , there is less understanding on 
how to apply customs duties on electronic transmissions. Non -discriminatory taxation systems 
represent an alternative, less distortive way of collecting government revenue from digital  trade. 
Beyond revenue , tariffs on electronic transmissions might also impact competitiveness and 
participation of firms in trade, especially small and medium enterprises and women owned ones.  
1.11.  New regulatory issues have emerged with digital trade t hat require global solutions. A growing 
number of measures condition  the cross-border data flows that underpin digital  trade. Deeper and 
inclusive international cooperation is needed for a balanced approach to global data governance , 
which ensures data can  flow across borders as freely as possible while addressing public policy 
concerns . Network effects and economies of scale and scope are giving rise to concerns about market 
power and anti -competitive  behaviour . To promote competition in digital markets, e xchange of 
information and knowledge between competition authorities , collective responses when feasible, as 
well as innovative approaches and consensus -building should be encouraged. Divergent consumer 
protection regulations and enforcement can hinder con sumer trust in the digital economy . Enacting 
adequate legal frameworks, enforcing regulations and addressing cross -border disputes are essential 
to create a safer and more inclusive digital environment for consumers.  
1.12.  In conclusion, let me say that policym aking for digital trade requires a whole -of-government 
approach , as issues cut across minist ries. Global cooperation is also essential to ensure that benefits 
from digital trade are realised and more inclusive . This report is a contribution to that cooperation.  
1.13.  The representative of the World Bank  delivered the following statement:   
1.14.  I really have little to add to the presentation, because I think it did justice to the main 
messages that flow from this study. But I would like to emphasise from a World  Bank perspective, 
from a multilateral development bank perspective, the concern we have over the very limited  share  
of LDC s in digital trade and the report shows that very clearly . At the end of 2022, LDCs accounted 
for 0.2% of digitally delivered service s which is just appallingly too low. What is even more 
worrisome is that exports of ICT services, which have increased very significantly in all parts of the 
world, have actually gone down in LDCs. This draws attention to the need to really scale up Aid for 
Trade directed to countries that are  facing real connectivity challenges . When I travel to LDCs and 
work on digital and services trade issue s, it is quite rare that we actually encounter discussions of 
the moratorium . It is really about how can we actually provide access  to our citizens, acc ess to the 
internet, access to physical infrastructure that allows connectivity ? How can we increase the 
productive use of ICT to realise gains from trade over digital networks and so on ? So, I really would 
like to emphasise that aspect of the report  – the call that the report makes for increasing the 
resources that  flow i n Aid for Trade for digital take -up in the world's most resource -constrained 
countries.  
1.15.  The representative of UNCTAD  delivered the following statement : 
1.16.  Thank you for this opportunity to intervene. I do  not have much to add. I would like to thank 
the WTO for a very good presentation and I would concur a lot with what the World Bank  said. 
Another thing that we are really struggling with , and we are highlighting in the report and is also 
coming out from the presentation, is the lack of good data on developments in developing countries 
with regard to digital trade . It is also difficult for developed countries .  I would like to take this WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 4 - 
 
  opportunity to stress that beyond the discussions that you will have today here in the WTO, we will 
also have very detailed discussions about digital trade and development and all the dimensions of i t 
during the UNCTAD  eWeek coming up in the beginning of December. I think this will be a dialog ue 
that will be strength ened thanks to the joint work we have been doing together with the other 
organisations i n the report that we hope will be coming out very soon.  
1.17.  The representative of the OECD  delivered the following statement:   
1.18.  I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the WTO for the leadership and the initiative. 
We think this has been a very useful exercise. We think that this exercise has cut across many of 
the issues that matter for digital trade, including on the morat orium. We look forward to hearing the 
discussion .  
1.19.  The representative of the IMF delivered the following statement:   
1.20.  Thank you very much to the WTO for presenting our joint slides on the forthcoming report 
and it was really a pleasure to collaborate with a ll of the international organi zations on this report . 
We do not have a whole lot more to add , to what has already been said.  
1.21.  The Chairperson  thanked the representatives of the organisations  for their interventions. She 
noted that while there was some evidence in the report, there was also need for more data and that 
the reality on the ground was not necessarily focused on the moratorium. But the focus of the 
present meeting was the moratoriu m. In that regard , she needed to hear from Members as well to 
see what to do with this information. How did Members wish to move forward on this? She recalled 
that this was the third session focused on the moratorium. Members had been making statements 
but had not yet reached the position where they were actually looking at specific definitions or 
proposals on the table. She opened the floor to hear suggestions on how to move forward with this 
and how to try to be like the international organisations and speak with one voice.  
1.22.  The representative of India delivered the following statement : 
1.23.  Let me first begin with saying that after this presentation, even the most prodig ious student 
will have difficulties in comprehending things after 10 -15 minutes and then  start responding on a 
paper or a report, which has been prepared by such great luminaries across IMF, World Bank, OECD 
etc., though we only have the IMF and OECD paper with us. I tried my best in the last 15 minutes 
to concentrate on the presentation as w ell as to quickly go through what is there, at least in the IMF 
report. The first observation is  that it looks like a classic report where  the outcome has been decided  
already . And I apologise,  I will be very frank and blunt . Generally, what happens with a 
consultant -driven approach  is you give a mandate  where you  need a certain  outcome . So whatever 
data can be collate d is done,  though data collection is very difficult in this sector . But at least this 
gives something  to those who have given the mandate for the report.  So, the proponents can now  
hide behind the report and not bring a proposal  based on evidence , based on experiences in the last 
25 years . With the help of the report, t hey just come out with a one paragra ph note that the 
moratorium should be extended . So, they take a shelter under this so -called high -level experts 
report and then change the narrative.  
1.24.  Thankfully, I read in the disclaimer that the view s expressed in IMF Notes are those of the 
authors  becau se I would be  surprised if this had been  circulated to the Executive Board (EB) and 
whether the respective EBs have blessed this report , so, thank God , it is not . The disclaimer 
continues  to say that  they do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF or its Executive Board 
or its management . So, my humble request is that if these reports  find place on the WTO web site, 
then please put this disclaimer in bold and readable form  - not like those mutual fund s prospectus 
where the disclaimers are  impossible to read without a magnifying glass.  So, this is the first request 
that if these reports are going on the WTO website, then first it should be going through a disclaimer. 
Whoever is clicking on the link shou ld first read the disclaimer , in bold, italics, underlined , whatever 
form, and then it should take  you to the respective websites where these reports will be uploaded.  
1.25.  Coming to the technical points . I saw the data and I would like to make two  broad point s to 
the esteemed authors. We have been told by the same organi zations , that is IMF, World Bank , OECD 
etc., that when making  any policy decision s, there should be analysis of the  baseline  scenario and 
of the before and after scenario , because sometime s the  baseline scenario which shows  normal WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 5 - 
 
  growth or normal result s may be misleading.  Policymakers tend to fall into that trap and say that 
since we have taken this decision at this particular point in time, therefore the graph is evolving in 
a certain way . Very wisely,  the international organizations have always advised  that decisions should 
have the baseline  and they should also depict what would have happened if the policy decision is 
not taken. So, there is a baseline scenario and there are counterfactuals  for the impact or the 
outcomes.  Based on the delta between the scenarios, the political executive can make an 
informed  decision.   
1.26.  In this case, the moratorium has been  continuing for almost 25 years, except for breaks , for 
a very short period , at two poin ts in time between 1998 to 20 23. So, my question is whether this 
study has factored in what has gone great for this sector , i.e., for the growth of el ectronic 
transmission s. One common denominator was the moratorium across 25 years, and if we remove 
the no n-existence of the moratorium for a couple of years, 23 years or 22 years . So, what has been 
done differently?  Can we say that a particular  sector  or a geography has shown specific  growth  due 
to the moratorium?  For example , if the moratorium is the only re ason, or the mandatory reason, or 
the desirable reason, then we would have seen the benefits across geograph ies. I believe it was the 
World Bank who just said that the  LDCs find it difficult , that they have less participation  in the digital 
economy . So, what has gone wrong ? The moratorium was there in  the LDCs, the moratorium was 
also in India , South Africa , Indonesia and  in all countries . That was the common denominator . So 
why have different  countries, different jurisdictions  shown different progress  at different point s in 
time? We are seeing tremendous growth  in electronic transmissions , maybe post 2015. So , what 
happened between 1998 and 2015  that this growth was not so diverse though the moratorium was 
in place?  My understanding , coming from Indian experiences , is that something would have been 
done differently  back home, whether  on the policy, or on the infrastructure, or on reaching out, 
educating, skill sets building and enrichment , what ever you call it . Clearly,  something has been done 
differently by different geographi cal areas  at different point s in time and that is why despite the  
common denominator  of the moratorium,  you still see different kinds of growth in  different areas. 
Even wi thin a country, look at the areas within a  huge country like India, why do we see different 
growth across  different  states? Obviously because the moratorium is there everywhere, e -commerce 
is taking place almost everywhere, but there are handicaps and barriers  in the participation and in 
further taking up this sector within the different areas  across the states. So , it means those items  
beyond the moratorium  are more important  than the moratorium itself . And then the last point on 
this baseline and befo re and after scenario is about the sector s. If the moratorium is available for 
all digital transmission s, then why have certain sectors done so well and why are certain sectors still 
picking up ? If you can throw some light on this, if it is part of the rep ort, I will read that page and 
see what is done differently  and therefore the mo ratorium is not the magic bullet to achieve that 
growth and progress.  
1.27.  The second point is , the WTO is mostly a platform for tariff discussion. So , have you done th e 
analysis of whether  tariffs and domestic taxes are replaceable? Because the IMF paper , and again I 
will put a caveat that it is only from the 10-15 minutes I have had to review the paper, says  that 
VAT is good , domestic taxes are good. But is it a discussion point t hat VAT is good , domestic tax is 
good? In which literature or research i s it said that if you apply VAT you cannot apply customs 
duties? Because it is being portrayed as , if you apply VAT, there is no need for customs dut ies; but 
I think all countries present here , either proponents or non -proponents, in their domestic 
jurisdictions , apply both customs dut ies and VAT . If we stretched this argument further that  you 
could collect revenue through VAT only , then, can the  authors  identify other sectors of the economy 
apart from digital transmission  where the overall economic benefit of tariffs  is negative ? Therefore , 
are the authors suggesting that the tariffs should be completely eliminated in those sectors and  
every country should  have 100% reliance only on the domestic tax es? I have given this example  
already, let's take the agriculture sector  -  the most important topic today i n the food security 
discussion in the WTO  - can we have the same policy that all the countries, maybe in cluding India , 
having a higher tariff structure for certain food products , can say  that, 'wow, it is fantastic ', because 
you can collect this , even if your domestic production is getting wiped out , no problem, as long as 
you are getting cheap food supply . Why are you making food costly for your own people  by putting 
tariffs ? Just put VAT, domestic VAT and it does not matter whether domestic production  happens or 
not? A nd in this case, digital industrialization is getting a hit.  
1.28.  The third question is whethe r authors have analysed that whenever a new industry comes up , 
or a new sector comes up, w hen was the last time tariff was not used as a tool  for the benefit of 
that sector ? And here we are talking of industry 4.0 and digital industrialization. So , what research 
has been done which says that the policies taken in the 1940s and 1950s , post-World War  II, were WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 6 - 
 
  wrong, and countries should not have imposed tariffs going for industrialization and they should 
have gone for free trade ? Why have t hey woken up 25 -30 or 40 years  after helping their nascent 
industries , after  building that industry and then gradually reducing the tariff s rather than starting 
from a zero tariff ? But now the cycle is reversed because we are seeing the same cou ntries going 
from lower tariff s to imposing tariffs. Steel is a classic example  where some countries are saying 
that it is not a bad thing to use tariffs on steel imports.  So, what makes digital industrialization so 
specific and peculiar that this sector o f the economy, or this part of industrialization must start with 
zero tariff s and remain with zero tariff s and only rely on that policy. Why is it assumed that it will 
have no negative impact on countries' digital industrialization just because  consumers a re getting 
cheap import ? 
1.29.  The last point is , for these kinds of studies or reports, if we really want a frank discussion  or 
a well-read, well-informed discussion , then please give us some time. Even the most disciplined 
school students would find it difficu lt to respond in such a situation. And I have put my neck on the 
chopping block by taking the floor at the beginning because I can always be blamed for speaking 
without having read the report. Yes, because we have not been given time  to read the report . At the 
same time , we have blocked three hours of our  time. W e tried desperately , even the night before , 
to get something so that we can be prepared and actually discuss the report . But we were told that 
it was  under embargo . So, please let us know if there are other reports also because we only have 
the OECD and IMF  papers . We were told that this report is by  OECD, IMF, UNCTAD, World Bank  and 
WTO. And the last worrying trend  will be if OECD and UNCTAD  start speaking in the same voice , 
then what is the relevance  of UNCTAD ? We should not  waste our limited resources in financing a 
multiplicity of these organi zations,  and it is better that one organi zation should take care of the 
common good of the entire world . There is no need to say  that for developme nt we need another 
organi zation, OECD cannot do what UNCTAD  can do.  
1.30.  The Chairperson  thanked the representative of India for the questions. She noted  that the 
OECD and the IMF had put out some documents  in the room . She recalled that the five organisations 
were still finalising the joint report. The report ha d not been completed yet, so it  was not available . 
The present meeting was supposed to look at the findings from the perspective of the different 
organi zations  and they  were sharing those findings orally. S he said that when the joint report would 
be ready and available, Members would have plenty of time to read it and revert to it. She was 
certain that all Members had the highest respect  for the international organ izations they had 
established and respected the integrity with which they work ed and deliver ed on results. The 
comprehensive report, which was supposed to be a compilation of facts , focused on digital trade for 
development, not the moratorium. It  was a much broader report, addressing the issue of 
development from different perspectives. The intention was to use that aspect of the moratorium to 
provoke and advance Members ' discussions on the moratorium. In that regard, she was g lad that 
some questions had been  raised and was sure representatives of the international organisations 
would answer.  
1.31.  The repres entative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:   
1.32.  Thank you very much for the presentation. I would also like to thank the  representatives from 
other organi zations who chipped into the presentation. Let me start off by saying that  my colleague, 
Ambassador Brajendra  of India has raised very valid and important points. And just to reemphasize 
it, I did get a chance to read the IM F report in detail. So , a number of points that he has raised are 
not off the mark, even though he says that he has  not read the report. So let me highlight a couple 
of things . He has covered a lot of points that I had in mind, but there are some technical  points that 
I wanted to understand after reading the IMF paper . Interestingly , the first thing it does is to  give 
policy options . It makes a comparison between policy options so that you can either have tariffs , 
which is not good , or the second option is to levy VAT. But what about those countries  – and there 
are a lot of developing countries  and LDCs, that do not  have a VAT system in place, they only have 
a sales tax  – what are they going to do?  
1.33.  The second technical point that I want to raise is that for any import of a product, it says that 
the foreign suppliers become a registered vendor. But you know some of these vendors are  very 
big, they are large firms. Some of them probably exercise more power than some countries. How is 
the country going to fo rce them to register as vendor s? Even d eveloped countries , with their 
well-developed systems, have not been  able to rei gn them in.  I do not understand what the solution 
is for those countries. W ill they need to put in VAT first? That would probably mean an other decade. 
The third point I want to raise is about the counterfactual which has been used in the IMF report, WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 7 - 
 
  where it just uses the imports of digiti zable goods  – so goods which were  initially physical, but now 
are being delivered digitally . But that  is a very  small component of new goods which were bo rn 
digital , what about those goods? The report does not explain what the impact is.  
1.34.  In various reports , whether it is t he UNCTAD  report , OECD report s, everybody says that lifting 
the moratorium would very poorly impact women -led MSMEs. Now the word 'women' appears in the 
IMF report twice. Also, in the UNCTAD report it does not explain how women -led SMEs would be 
impacted. The only thing it says is that women -led SMEs, presumably use digital tools , like a website , 
but the link to how the moratorium will impact  them is missing . Probably in the full report we  will 
get a chance to read about that.  
1.35.  The final point that I would like  to raise is with respect to the presentation , which says that 
you need to br ing in digital infrastructure and have the right connectivity. Well, that  is very good  
and is absolutely correct. That  is the essential but not  sufficient condition . This is something which 
every country has to do . But having said  that, how does it link up  with the e -commerce moratorium ? 
I was unable to get the connection between the two. Finally, with regard to the reference to the 
whole -of-government  approach , it is absolutely right , it is required. I t also looked like the 
presentation says that there needs to be regulatory cooperation  at a global scale . But when  the 
same issue of regulatory cooperation was raised by India in one of the previous sessions , the 
response was not encourag ing. So, what would come first? Would the regulatory cooperation  come 
first? Or does the e-commerce moratorium need to continue? I would also like to understand that.  
1.36.  The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:   
1.37.  We note the presentation we have just received. I think it  is important to also stress the point 
that we are not enabled to have a substantive discussion, an informed discussion, even if we 
understand that the study is still in process  but at least the slides could have been shared or some 
narrative or high -level report . Wha t is in fro nt of us by way of the distributed documents at the door 
are old reports I am informed . Experience tells us that it is more constructive when Members have 
something to reflect on ahead of time.  
1.38.  From what I listened to, both the summation of the Chief Econ omist of the WTO, as well as 
the different Members from international organizations that have chipped in, it is clear that there 
are still significant gaps in knowledge on this area to make any definitive and or conclusive points. 
UNCTAD, f or example, noted the fact of the lack of good data and that data on  cross-border  
transactions  is challenged for both developing and developed countries . And that tells you that we 
are still pretty far from making any definitive conclusions about the utility of tariffs fo r electronic 
transmissions.  
1.39.  The previous notes sent by the IMF have demonstrated reliance on  Computable General 
Equilibrium  (CGE) modelling despite  its known limitations such as , for an example , quality data 
assumption about  market behaviour and the fact that these models are static. One of  the 
contributors alluded to the need for us to look at VAT as a more efficient  revenue collection tool and 
it also comes up in the previous IMF study. We would like to caution  that this issue could cloud our 
deliberations  because it presents VAT as a substitute for electronic transmission tariffs , and the 
delegation from India ha s made similar points. The re are aggressive impacts of VAT on low -income 
individuals which are overlooked in some of these reflections. The assertion  of VAT  as a substitute 
creates a situation where there is almost an ideological counter against tariffs, and th is introduces 
a fundamentally new discussion point  in the WTO . We also should be cautious of positions that 
present low -income economies as if they are frozen  in space and time and that there will never be 
dynamic growth or up take in consumer activity , especially for digiti zable goods in future. And 
therefore , we should try not to cripple them based on  the percentage level of consumption today.  
1.40.  We would also want greater emphasis on the previous UNCTAD studies on this, especially the 
studies by Banga  and K ozul-Wright, which are given short shrift in some of the notes that we have . 
Yet, they have  demonstrated quite amply  that if the moratorium  is extended , the potential tariff 
revenue losses to developing countries  are in the order of large magnitudes , over USD 10 billion , 
and that was back in 2017. For LDCs, the figures are also high . For sub -Saharan African countries, 
the losses could be at about USD 2.6 billion . We would like to reiterate that tariff revenues remain 
a vital source  of building fiscal resili ence, especially under the current circumstances of economic 
strain. So, we reiterate our call on the proponents of the moratorium to put proposals on the table, WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 8 - 
 
  and this includes those points raised in previous deliberations . The proponents should provide  us 
with information  of the value of benefits developed  countries have gained in the period the 
moratorium has been in place. We would like to remind Members that the end date to the 
moratorium , as per the decision  at MC12 , is imminent and therefore there is urgency to conclude 
this matter.  
1.41.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following 
statement:   
1.42.  The CARICOM Group welcomes today 's Dedicated Discussion on the moratorium as testimony  
to our shared commitment, under your stewardship, Madam Facilitator, to carry out the mandate 
given to us by our Ministers at MC12. It would be recalled that the Ministerial Decision spoke to the 
intensification of our discussions on the moratorium, and w e see the convening of a third Dedicated 
Discussion on this topic as a good indication of our commitment to adhering to Ministers ' instruction. 
We see today 's Dedicated Discussion as an opportunity to deepen our dialogue on the moratorium, 
building upon th e foundation set through our dialogue in April and July, as well as our useful 
engagement with pertinent IGOs in early June.  
1.43.  Madam Facilitator, throughout our thematic discussions over the past year, you have been 
consistent in asking us to identify what specifically we think the WTO could do. It would be recalled, 
in this connection, that the CARICOM Group has called on a number of occasions for the  WTO 
Secretariat to conduct a technical, analytical study on the moratorium, including on its scope, 
definit ion and impact, and perhaps drawing on inputs from relevant international organisations. This 
request was premised on our observation that each side of the discussion on continuation or 
discontinuation of the moratorium consistently cited the study or stud ies that buttressed their 
specific arguments, contributing to the circularity of our discussion and perhaps further entrenching 
long-held views. Having called for new technical work on the moratorium to be conducted by the 
Secretariat, this study outstrips  our request insofar as it is a joint effort that goes beyond the 
expertise resident in the Secretariat to draw collaboratively on the valuable input of several pertinent 
international organisations for the co -authoring of the study.   
1.44.  In this connection, we do thank each of the presenters for their interventions and the insights 
shared this morning. Of course, as we have not yet had sight of the report, we have not yet had an 
opportunity to reflect on its contents as the CARICOM Group to identify particula r points on which 
we would wish to react or seek clarification. Nevertheless, we recognise that the preparation of the 
study and this discussion today are a good start, insofar as they could facilitate more -informed trade 
policy considerations as they rela te to the moratorium. Madam Facilitator, we anticipate that there 
would be value to be derived from continuing our discussion as the Membership on the contents and 
findings of the study. Bearing in mind the limited time at our disposal as we prepare for th e 
Ministerial and  depending on the time -frame for the report to be made available to the Membership, 
perhaps the deepening of our dialogue on this study could be a key element of our post -MC13 work.  
1.45.  Madam Facilitator, we have been engaged in discussions o n definition, scope and impact of 
the moratorium for quite some time now against the background of the expansion of online trade in 
digitizable goods. We have heard from certain Members that the moratorium has led to forgone tax 
revenue, has undermined com petitiveness of domestic digital economies in developing economies 
and has curtailed broader development aspirations. We have also heard from a Member on how it 
has sought to counter these impacts. As we consider our own limitations as far as capacity is 
concerned, we note that the Member 's experience in this regard has been instructive and insightful. 
Regarding technical and capacity -related considerations on the imposition of customs duties on 
electronic transmissions and on revenue collection, we underst and that this is likely to be a 
technically challenging  and costly endeavour for our economies in the region.  
1.46.  The CARICOM Group is of the considered view that the discontinuation of the moratorium 
would have a detrimental impact on businesses and consumers  in our developing economies. When 
we consider the possible ramifications for tariff revenue, consumer welfare, cost of doing business, 
competitiveness and growth, among other elements , overall, it remains difficult to reconcile the 
trade-restrictive impos ition of new tariffs on electronic transmissions with our efforts at the WTO to 
progressively remove  barriers to trad e as we seek to leverage trade for sustainable development.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.47.  We do not wish to repeat points previously made relating to alternative approac hes to revenue 
collection and on non -imposition of tariffs on electronic transmissions as part of the FTA practice of 
many WTO Members. However, we do wish to reiterate our view that  the moratorium is more of an 
enabler, as opposed to a hindrance, as we se ek to leverage e -commerce to improve our  global 
market reach , penetration  and competitiveness , despite limitations associated with our small size, 
scale and high production costs. We therefore call for the further extension of the moratorium at 
MC13. We also reiterate the suggestion made earlier in this intervention that our post -MC13 work 
could feature a deep dive into various elements of the joint study. We stand ready to engage wit h 
Members to craft suitable language for recommendations along these lines to be placed before our 
Ministers in February.  
1.48.  The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the ACP Group , delivered the following 
statement:  
1.49.  The ACP Group was very much looking for ward to having sight of the report and hearing a 
much more substantive presentation on the joint report on Digital Trade for Development , which we 
think could serve as a very important contribution to our discussions on the E -commerce Work 
Programme and in  particular on the moratorium.  While we understand the challenges that have been 
presented in finalising the report, we would like to know if the contributing organisations could give 
a more definitive timeline for the circulation of the report. Our Group participated actively in the 
session held on 20 April this year on the subject of the moratorium and welcomes this opportunity 
to advance our thinking, our knowledge and the body of work that is being developed on this 
important issue.     
1.50.  Madame Facilitat or, we stated in April that notwithstanding that at the time of the first 
declaration on the moratorium and the establishment of the Work Programme in 1998, we knew 
that we could not discern the borders for cyberspace for a customs duty. The nature of cybe rspace 
was "ones and zeros ", what our Ministers at the time referred to as "electronic transmissions. " The 
practice then, as it is today, was not to levy customs duties on electronic transmissions. There was 
some preceden t in practice concerning the practi ce for software. One example was that duties were 
not charged on the content of the physical version, rather, tariffs were imposed on the carrier media.   
This meant that for many Members, only the cost or value of the carrier medium was taken into 
account  in the valuation of physical software products. Moreover, when our Ministers agreed to the 
moratorium in 1998, the wording was very specific, "to maintain the current practice of not imposing 
customs duties on electronic transmissions ". We had stated in A pril, that the question of whether 
content is included in the value of a product and within the definition of electronic transmissions has 
also been an issue of divergence among Members. For products that are traded both physically and 
digitally, for examp le, books, film, digital games, and music, it would be interesting to know if the 
tariff on the physical product has changed based on the content. We were also interested in 
assessments of revenue loss. For this, we called for a deeper analysis of the actu al tariff imposed by 
each country on the content of the now digitised products. The trends at the time of imposition of 
tariffs on the physical good could be considered.    
1.51.  More recently, we have seen that a WTO Member has established an HS line for levying 
customs duties on content of products that were earlier traded physically, but that are now 
predominantly traded in digital form. While we appreciated this novel developme nt, we also noted 
that the Member indicated "0" as the actual tariff for those lines. Different delegations have put 
forward papers and arguments in particular on the estimated revenue loss impact on developing 
Members. Such analysis on revenue loss could also consider the cost that would have been paid by 
our consumers when the physical media was the leading technology. What costs would be paid by 
our consumers if we were able to levy tariffs now. Not only the revenue gain to our governments.   
We have con ducted webinars within the ACP Group to further probe these issues as well as the 
parallel developments in applying behind the border taxes on online transactions and products. We 
heard from the UN and OECD on their model digital tax and value -added tax (V AT) research.    
1.52.  We also considered some examples from our membership of how application of VAT on such 
transactions are emerging. We think it will be important for the WTO to collect information on the 
practices of all Members especially developing countr ies and LDCs where the development dimension 
and digital divide are also linked to the question of the moratorium in this respect. Here, we note 
that technology, which is often not owned by our countries, is important to bridging the digital divide 
that ex ists between the more technologically advanced and our countries.  These issues and, no 
doubt, the findings of the joint report will require more time to fully discuss and to assess the issues WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 10 - 
 
  surrounding the moratorium in more depth. As South Africa and In dia have said this morning, we 
need more detailed data as the current situation limits our ability to have a collective definitive 
decision on the moratorium.  We may therefore seek to consider a temporary extension of the 
moratorium in this regard.   
1.53.  The r epresentative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines , on behalf of the OECS , delivered the 
following statement:   
1.54.  Let me thank you for convening us once again in this format. Let me also offer thanks to the 
Secretariat for the usual support . I also have to  thank the WTO and the other international 
organi zations for the presentations and the comments  today. I  am speaking on behalf of the 
organisation of Eastern Caribbean States  (OECS)  WTO Members. I want to align first with the 
CARICOM Group and the ACP Group. I thought it important to offer some reflections given the 
discussions we  have had thus far. I think some important issues have come up in the presentation 
as well as in some of the interventions from the floor. Given that , both in the presentation and in 
some of the conversations we  have had since , there  is a sense that data is somewhat lacking  – and 
I agree with  that – I want to take the opportunity to share some information that is specific to the 
OECS context . This is  not necessarily with respect to the moratorium or to electronic transmissions 
per se , because we believe that the lack of clarity that still exists around issues of definitions  and 
scope constrai ns our ability to make certain definitive pronouncements in terms of impact of the 
moratorium. But we do believe that, given that we are operating in a much broader digital 
ecosystem, there is some extrapolation of data that is necessary to drive home the point of the 
importance of the digital trade ecosystem for us , as OECS member States.  
1.55.  This data is based on some work that we  have done with the Commonwealth Secretariat . The 
data we have indicates that OECS countries have collectively been net exporters of 
telecommunications, computer and information services over the past decade. Most OECS countries 
in the decade prior to the pandemic would have also registered growth in exports of digitally 
deliverable services, and that  is a period between 2010 and 2019. These exports of digitally 
deliver able service s would have ranged from a low of US D 26 million to a high of over USD 200 
million for our respective member States. In the context of very small economies, USD 200 million  
is quite significant. And of course, I  am speaking of digitally downloa dable  services . But we are not 
operating with a high degree of confidence at this time , given the issue of definition and scope . 
Should the moratorium be suspended , or should it just collapse entirely , we are rather concerned in 
terms of how it would impact this growing and emerging area of trade for our member States, which 
is quite significant, especially given the impact of the COVID -19 pandemic on our economies.  
1.56.  Notwithstanding this growth that we ha ve seen with respect to digitally deliverable services , 
and the fact that they  are increasing in importance , our countries continue to face a range of 
challenges , in part due to a lack of digital readiness and deficiencies with respect to digital 
infrastru cture which constrain successful digital transformation. I  am saying this because I think that 
there are times when the  discussions on the moratorium  would give the impression that it is a 
panacea for all of the challenges and problems that countries face with respect to digital 
transformation or with respect to the broader e -commerce and digital trade ecosystem. But the way 
we look at the moratorium is that  we see it as an important cog, a very vital cog , in a much broader 
e-commerce and digital trade ecos ystem.  
1.57.  There is an art form that we have in many Caribbean countries , called  Calypso . In Saint Vincent 
and the Grenadines, there was a calypso in the early 1990s. And the Calypsonian penned this song 
where the different parts of his body  got into an argument . It was the brain and the hands and the 
nose and the ears and all of the different parts of the body , trying to prove why each was more 
important than the other. But at the end of it, none was really more important because they were 
all very impor tant in maintaining the whole ; so that the feet could not go where the eyes did  not 
lead and the ears could not really comprehend without the brain allowing that comprehension to 
take place. That is how we see  the issue of the moratorium . It is part of  a collective , it is part of a 
whole , we have to look at it in the context of the broader digital trade ecosystem and the challenges 
that countries face in that ecosystem. We have to focus on all aspects of the digital trading ecosystem 
in terms of the digital  divide, in terms of the legal and  regulatory issues that Members face. That  is 
how we look at the moratorium .  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.58.  In the OECS , we have started our consultations in terms of the implications that are likely to 
emerge should the moratorium la pse. What I would say is that amongst our creatives , those persons 
that are involved in the digital economy, those persons that are now beginning to get some traction 
on digital trading platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music, etc ., now  that they are getting that kind 
of recognition and profiling , they are very concerned  in terms of what the suspension of the 
moratorium would  mean for them in that context and so  I thought it important to put this out there . 
We heard from India and South Africa this morning with respect to some of the challenges with the 
lack of data . I think  those views are very critical. I think we are operating in a context where we do  
not have the full value of all  the information that we need to make a very  credible decision . I certainly 
agree with the ACP Group that in those circumstances where there are so many missing pieces  still, 
perhaps it  is prudent to renew the moratorium at MC13 and let us have that very deep dive and 
dedicated conversation post -MC13 , where we commit to resolving all those outstanding issues , with 
respect to the scope , with respect to the definition , with respect to the impact and do what is 
necessary to ensure that the data  is available for all WTO Members .  
1.59.  Perhaps the question to the organisations w hich are present  is: I am not sure if the report 
touches on the technical feasibility of being able to impose  the customs duties , but even if 
theoretically the possibility exists , technically  would that feasibility exist in the real worl d? That is 
importan t for us because we would need to also have our customs agencies start thinking about 
potentially how to handle this new sort of  development . This is  again assuming that we would live 
in a world where there is no moratorium . The way we perceive this particular challenge , and again  
in a context where definitions and scope are not clear, would we be applying  duty to text messages 
and to emails ? Those are  just some questions we would have as well. So , if in the report ther e is 
anything on the technical feasibility, we would be very happy to hear that as  well.  
1.60.  The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:   
1.61.  I want to thank the international organizations for the work they  have been doing on this 
report and their presentation today. It  is very useful to have an evidence -based discussion, so I 
appreciate that very much. Indeed,  I echo others in saying  it would have been good t o have had the 
report before this discussion, so we  would  be happy to have a further discussion once the report is 
tabled. The existing work on the table though is quite voluminous, although there  is still work to be 
done. In the IMF report  we were interes ted to find that broad based non -discriminatory value added  
taxes are preferable from an economic efficiency and from a revenue standpoint . In the O ECD report  
we were  very interested to see that tariffs would hit low-income  countries the hardest, reduce 
competitiveness and smaller and women -owned firms would be the most impacted. Indeed, I would 
like to refer to the earlier report of the Enhanced Integrated Framework, Rethinking LDC Trade 
Priorities which notes that a renewal of the moratorium would ensure less uncertainty for LDCs and 
that a permanent ban on duties on electronic transmission s could also be in the long-term interest 
of LDCs . 
1.62.  Just a final point in response to the World Bank's comment on feedback on the ground, it  is 
really valuable to h ear what people are hearing in the field as we  are stuck here in Geneva. I would 
note though it is hard for people to reflect on something that they have  not been subject to for a 
quarter of a ce ntury , since the beginning of the Internet. I would liken it to us all being glad we  are 
not having our oxygen taxed. So , I think in terms of the way forward for future studies and future 
work that could be done, I completely agree with all the delegations  that have come before me and 
with the international organi zations ' focus on th e LDC element, but I would encourage that perhaps 
one way forward could be choosing a selection of products, different rates of tariffs and modelling 
that. We do know what the c urrent status is, that  is, the figures in all our economies today ; what is 
most uncertain is what the impact on LDCs and developing countries would be from imposing duties. 
Obviously , we have to make certain assumptions about which sectors they would be imposed on 
and, without people proposing what  sectors they would like to impose duties on , there is a level of 
uncertainty. But I think you could learn a lot from some examples of the w ay it could be imposed in 
certain sectors at various levels and mapping that onto LDCs. I think that would be a really valuable 
contribution to the wealth of data and analysis that the international organisations  have already 
done and for which I thank the m again.  
1.63.  The representative of India delivered the following statement:   
1.64.  Sorry to come in again and thank you , Ambassador Usha , for giving me the floor again. Just 
to add on to my wish list because now I have been told that the report is not yet finalised, and that WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 12 - 
 
  work is still going on. So, from our side , if I can ask for three or four things to also be considered in 
the report.  First, can the report clarify whether tariff use is only for revenue gain s or if tariff use for 
industrialization  is a valid policy instrument  as well? Can we say that the  tariff use is also for  
macroeconomic stability, since this report is coming from the IMF? Because in the last two years,  
we have seen that  tariffs have been used by various countries as a tool for macroeconomic stability . 
This is particularly  true of  countries that are facing economic  stress and approaching IMF or having 
balance of payme nt crisis or having a shock in the foreign exchange reserve or the availability of 
foreign exchange. Why is this important? Because there are substitutes, substitutable products, 
replaceable products, luxury items, essentials. So, if there is a demand on t he scarce  foreign 
exchange available in a particular country, should that country allow tariff -free, duty-free, quota -free 
access of video games, or should they channel the scarce foreign exchange to buy out wheat or rice 
to feed  their own people ? So, could  a chapter be devoted on the policy use of tariff ? For a moment, 
let us keep aside the questions of  revenue gain or r evenue loss  due to the moratorium  and just 
concentrate on these two things : how tariff s have been used in industrialization  and how tariff s can 
help macroeconomic stability or come in the way of macroeconomic stability ?  
1.65.  The second request  is on two issues with which the moratorium  started. I was told that in 
1998, two issues were on the table: scope and definition was not clear  and technical and 
administrative capacity was not there to impose  tariffs on such transactions. Now, based on what  
we read in these reports, the second issue has been taken care of because the studies are  
propagating or proposing that internal taxes can be implemented  on electronic transmissions . It 
implies  that the authors have agreed that there are ways and means of  collecting taxes or duties on 
such transactions. Given that one of the suggestions in the IMF paper is a reverse charge mechanism , 
if a reverse charge mechanism can be used for  internal taxes , if a reverse charge mechanism can 
be used for intermediary goods  for input tax credit on B2B transactions, t hen obviously they  presume 
that the administrative and technical capacity does exist in the world somewhere where these things 
have been done. So, the second point is taken care of. The first is  still debatable. On that, if the 
report can throw some light on the scope and definition,  it would be very helpful.  What is the 
treatment of services in the WTO or in the GAT T or in the World Customs Organization, or in the 
respective national legislation s on customs duties on services? Because what we hear is that without 
the moratorium, customs duties can even be extended to emails and text messages . So, let us be 
very clear on whether customs duties  are actually going to be implemented on emails and text 
messages , whether  WCO or national legislations allow such kind of tariffs on such services  already 
with or without the moratorium .  
1.66.  The third request is an analysis from those years  when the moratorium , I do not know  for 
what reason , was not extended. So , what happened during those years ? Did the digital economy or 
digital transaction s collapse , or remain ed stagnant, or show ed some growth ? I was told there were 
two occasions from 1998 until now  where the m oratorium was not extended. What exactly happened 
during those two years based on evidence and data? And if there is country specific data, it will be 
very useful even if global data is not available. Two more anal yses: w hat if, until we decide  the scope 
and definition, we can go for a moratorium on the moratorium?  Until we sort out this scope and 
definition debate , we just say that we park this issue and do not continue the moratorium  but put a 
moratorium on the extension of the moratorium . Let us see whether proponents are coming on 
board, coming with paper submissions  on their understanding of the scope and the definition of the 
moratorium.  And the last point, we hear a lot that this is beneficial for consuming economy , this is 
beneficial for small, vulnerable economies  and it is good for women -led MSMEs, and I would add 
startups. So, can one analysis be done on keep ing big tech separate and actually giv ing this benefit 
of the moratorium to startups, MSMEs and not only women -owne d organizations but those 
organizations who actually give real employment to women. So, these are five specific suggestions 
for consideration to the authors to dwell into and if we can get something out of this report, it will 
be really helpful.  
1.67.  The Chairperson  said that she has always regretted the fact that there was not enough 
recording of the negotiating history at the WTO  which might have helped . She recalled that i n 1998 , 
based on what she had heard , the proposal had been for electronic transmissions , and the then 
representative of Brazil, Roberto  Azevedo , had change d it to electronic transactions . But this had 
not been recorded  as far as she was aware.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.68.  The representative of the WTO delivered the fol lowing statement:   
1.69.  The first thing I want to clarify  is that the joint report that I presented here is not out yet , we 
have not published this yet and the distributed reports are different  reports from the IMF and the 
OECD . Given that we have  the pleasure to have these international organi zations with us today, we 
thought it might be helpful also to hand out their reports on this  issue. The report is very close to 
being finished.  You asked about the concrete timeline , there is no concrete date yet , but we are 
thinking about launching it during the UNCTAD eWeek, but I can not promise that yet. This is 
something that is still being  finalised , but that gives you a sense  of how close we are to the finish 
line, which also  means that I do  not think at thi s point we will be able to accommodate major 
changes. So , if there  is any requests for additional material to be included, perhaps that would have 
to be done i n follow -up work . Even though  the report is not finalised yet , we thought we  would  take 
this opportunity to share our findings in the hope of informing your discussions wit h an objective, 
factual and evidence -based  analysis which does not take any position, of course, on the issues  that 
you need to decide ultimately . 
1.70.  I will let the IMF speak to the questions that pertain to their study , but in terms of our joint 
study, one thing I wanted to clarify  is that we do not have any quantitative predictions on the growth 
of digital trade  that is due to the moratorium as opposed to other factors and that could explain  why 
digital trade in some regions o r some countries is going faster. But we do make the general point , 
and I think that  is an important point , that for the digital economy to thrive, you need  many things 
to go right. You need the right infrastructure in place , you need the right skills in place,  and you 
need the right regulator y environment . Of course,  that gives ample ways to have some variation 
across regions. Also, we do  not claim in the joint report that VAT and customs duties  are m utually 
exclusive, although we do recognise that for revenue generation, they both generate revenue and, 
as I shared with you, come to the conclusion that the loss of customs revenue resulting from the 
moratorium has been estimated to be below 0.33% . We also say that non -discriminatory tax systems 
or VAT systems are available and are generally considered to be a less distortive way of generating 
government revenue.  
1.71.  The representative of the IMF delivered the following statement:   
1.72.  Thank you for these questions  on the paper . I would just like to  say this was a study that we 
did partly with the view to inform these discussions and it was released on 7 September 2023 at the 
Public Forum. There was a panel where we launched it.  We do not claim that t ariffs and VAT are 
mutually exclusive , they clearly are  both being used in many countries. What the study does is to 
look at optimal ways to raise revenue from digitised products , i.e.,  products which were formerly 
traded physically and now are traded digi tally. It does not look at other motives besides raising 
revenue and it does not look at tariffs in other sectors or other types of products. In summary, what 
we find  from the well-known economic literature is that value added taxes are an efficient way to  
raise revenue because they create minimal distortions. There  is also experience with implementing 
and administering them. On top of this, we then compare the revenue implications of tariffs as 
opposed to VAT on these same flows and find that for many inco me groups, these are comparable 
or larger for V AT. The differences between the growth in these products  between regions and sectors 
is not something that we try to explain in this study. There was a question also on  whether LDCs  
can easily implement VAT. In our study , we show in Figure 7  that t his is actually a big concern , that 
the efficiency of VAT in low-income  countries is lower than in high -income and middle -income 
countries  and we stress  the need for further technical assis tance for improving the efficiency of V AT 
in these countries. On w hether we include the so -called born digital  products, again, we do not 
consider services here, but to the extent that under 'born digital ' you mean  the same products that 
were previously tr aded physically, then yes, that is in the estimates.  
1.73.  The representative of the OECD  delivered the following statement:   
1.74.  Let me say it  is a pleasure to listen to this great  discussion that  is taking place. I want to 
make three quick points, but first of all, I just want to highlight that the report makes a very clear 
case that digital trade has thrived. So , during these 25 or so years that we  have had the moratorium , 
the report clearly shows t hat there  has been an 8% annual growth in digital ly deliverable services, 
and that far outpaces the growth in other type s of trade. So perhaps this is one of the counterfactual 
scenarios that we  are talking about.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.75.  The first point I want to make relates to  one of the comments  made by India : domestic versus 
tariffs. And I just want to highlight one key difference which I think is really important and often 
overlooked in these debates. The key difference between VAT and GST and tariffs is that VAT and 
GST app ly to final  consumption while tariffs apply to any type of product. This is important because 
effectively, if you  are applying a tariff, you might be applying a taxation on your digital inputs which 
then you use to increase your digital competitiveness , or your competitiveness in domestic 
industries. Indeed, this is something that we find in the OECD study that digital inputs  are key 
determinants of domestic and international competitiveness. If you  are putting a tariff on these 
items, then you  are likely to affect that domestic competitiveness. If you put a VAT and GST, you 
bypass that channel and so you won't get any negative competitiveness effect. The second thing 
that I want to highlight is related to the comment s made by South Africa asking to  take into 
consideration the analysis done in the work by Bang a and Kozul -Wright and co -authors of UNCTAD. 
I just wanted to highlight that those f all within the remit of the shares that we identify in the report, 
that is , that they  are still below 0.33%  of overall government revenue . Therefore , even if we believe 
those estimates over other estimates that are being prov ided, these estimates still continue to be 
relatively small.  
1.76.  The third point I want to make is related to the comment that was made by Saint  Vincent and 
the Grenadines, which I think was a very good illustration of one of the mechanisms that we also 
highlight in the OECD report, which is that for many low -income countries, for many -middle income 
countries , the main export s destinations tend to be other middle -income countries and other low -
income countries , where there is scope for these to raise tariffs most , given the current structure of 
tariff. That is why we find that potentially, if tariffs were to be applied on elect ronic transmissions, 
mimicking what  is happening in digitizable  goods, it would be low -income countries that would suffer 
the most from these tariffs precisely because the structure and the nature of how their trade is 
geared towards other countries.  
1.77.  The representative of World Bank  delivered the following statement:  
1.78.  I would like to also make three observations . One  is on the difference between tariffs and 
VAT. A lot of countries are able , by using VAT, to actually target lower rates  for specific income 
groups or specific products that enter the basket, for example, of poorer households .  It is much  
more difficult to target that kind of differentiation in the use of tariffs. So that  is the first observat ion. 
Two, on the notion of whether tariffs are used for fiscal revenue generation purposes or to fund 
industrialization , which was a question asked by the Ambassador of India , I think the numbers that 
the report produces suggest that the scale of the revenues  that would be generated  are certainly 
insufficient to sustain significant investment  industrialization across the board. The scale is just not 
in the same league . So, I think we need to distinguish between the use to which the tariff revenue 
that would flow from the end of the moratorium would be put. Three, j ust to echo what my colleague 
from the IMF just said , and perhaps one reason why the issue of the moratorium does no t come up 
very often in discussions with LDC governments when we talk about reforms in the digital space and 
in service s trade, is partly the weakness of tax regimes and the constraints that LDCs face in 
mobilising revenue  – hence their greater dependence on tariff revenue versus non -tariff sources of 
revenue  – but also a recognition that with weak governance of tax regimes  the idea of imposing 
tariffs to electronic transmissions  poses very genuine technical capacity constraints . So, emphasising 
the point I made earlier in my intervention, the re is a  need to provide targeted technical assistance 
and Aid for Trade to countries to address these kinds of issues . It is not surprising that the 
dependence of LDCs is greater  on tariff revenue. There  is a rea son for that, and that is partly the 
sheer difficulty they have in applying tax regimes to other sources of revenue.   
1.79.  The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement:   
1.80.  I find the issues that have been discussed very interesting. I just want  to share Nigeria's view 
on this issue of  the moratorium . I thank all the international organi zations that are here and who 
have shed light on the issue of revenue and the issue of  VAT. At some point, w e asked some pertinent 
questions  about  carrying out some kind of  assessment or analysis using the effective applied tariffs , 
for us to know what the actual impact on tariff revenue  is. If you undertake an assessment based 
on the bound  tariff, that is a different ball game altogether , but if you under take an assessment 
based on the effective applied tariff, b y which  I mean  your applied regime  taking into account the 
preferential rates etc. I have  done those analys es again and again  and saw that for most countries 
in Africa, it  is almost near zero. For Nigeria , the moratorium  is an integral part of our digital 
industrialization policy and I  will explain why. I thank the colleague  from the OECD  who t alked about WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 15 - 
 
  the issue of digital inputs. Our MSME s, who are now taking advantage of  digital  platform s to develop , 
require  access to some cheap inputs to be able to scale up their approach. If you look at it  in terms 
of their ability to grow and maybe generate more economic activity within our system , it is huge. 
That is the way we see it . For us, the issue of  the moratorium is an integral part of our digital 
industrialization policy because it allows our M SMEs  to be able to  access these inputs in a way that 
also enhance s their competitiveness  in the market . I just want to shed light on those issues and 
thank the representative of the World Bank for shedding l ight on some of these issues. In summary, 
Nigeria is of the view that we should  look at the moratorium again.  This hype or  notion that we are 
losing billions in terms of revenue, we do not subscribe to that because the data does  not support 
that conclusion. What the data we have analysed support s the notion  that if you run that analysis 
using the effective applied tariff, you  discove r that the benefits of the moratorium far outweigh the  
cost. Like I said earlier , MSMEs  are able to access the digital input and  upscale their activi ties.  
1.81.  The representative of India delivered the following statement:   
1.82.  Once again, my apology for taking the floor again , but this is just to clarify one of the point s 
where I think I was misunderstood. When I said that tariff is not only a tool for revenue  generation 
and it is a tool for industrialization , as well as bringin g in macroeconomic stability , I never meant  
that r evenue generated through tariffs is necessary for investing in industrialization. What I meant  
was that tariff s, historically , have been used by all countries of the WTO  to give incentives to their 
domestic industries , particularly at the nascent  stage , when they need some sort of protection from 
competition . Roles have reversed now , and even established industries are getting tariff protection. 
Steel is a classic example . It is certainly not a  nasce nt industry , but it attracts from  all proponents, 
major proponents of the moratorium , heavy customs dut ies either in one form or another . This is 
only to have protection for their domestic  steel production  from imports . So, when the World Bank 
said that it is used for funding industrialization, not at all, it is actually for protecting domestic 
industry , giving them what we call crutches, support, etc. - during the period of development .  
1.83.  Let me give examples of industries where this has actually hel ped, the a utomobile industry in 
India. If we look at the positive gains because of high tariffs, certainly they outweigh ed the negativity 
in the last 30 -40 years . Of course, we have  also used other policies. On the contrary, if we move 
towards digital industrialization and let us take the example of  3D printing. In 3D printing, it is 
possible to  design the value chain in such a manner that 75% of the value is captured on IP -related , 
design -based electronic transmission -enabled  products, which can be imported  into a country, and 
only 15% or 20% value addition in the overall cost or overall cost for the consumer is done locally . 
Then, in this case , with the moratorium,  it is very difficult to tax electronic transmissions  and ensure 
that when 3D printing is taking place as replacing manufacturing, sector after sector, the country 
will be able to protect those sectors that are competing with imported 3D printing design/prototypes 
in this manner.  
1.84.  Therefore, I am not saying that I want revenue generation in India  through customs duties . 
It is a very small proportion ; it may even be less than 1% of the total revenue. I n the last so many 
years, maybe 30 years  post-liberalisation, we have not been using c ustoms dut ies only as a tool for 
domestic revenue . So let it be very clear , it is for allowing industries to grow. It is allowing for 
protection . Yes, it is a protectionist measure but it creates a lot of employment , it creates a lot of 
income and then only the consumer surplus will kick in. If we kill employment , if we replace sector  
after sector with imported goods  there will be no consumer and consumer  surplus.  
1.85.  The representative of  the United States  delivered the following stat ement:  
1.86.  The United States thanks Ambassador Canabady for convening today 's session of the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce and welcome s the opportunity to discuss the moratorium. The 
United States continues to support the practice of not imposing custo ms on electronic transmissions. 
We appreciate the hard work of the international organizations and look forward to thoroughly 
reviewing the joint report when it is published. We welcome the sharing of their early findings with 
us today. Many here today rai sed important points about there being disparate outcomes in the 
growth of different countries ' and sectors ' digital industries.  We agree with those who have made 
the point that the moratorium is one tool, but not the only tool we can use. I hope that when  we 
read the joint report, it will reveal to us other salient issues that contribute to the success of a 
country developing a successful digital industry. I  am reminded that we have an opportunity through 
our MC13 outcome language to give guidance to the f uture of the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce and perhaps we can take up issues revealed by the report.  I do want to take up some of WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 16 - 
 
  the points raised today regarding digital industrialization. We had discussed in greater depth last 
year, but I can br iefly share some of our thinking on this issue today. In short, we do  not see 
manufacturing physical products as the same as developing digital products, such as software. The 
notion of recreating an entire industry in isolation translates poorly to the di gital economy, due to 
the interconnected, ever evolving, and specialized nature of many digital products.  
1.87.  We have found that imported digital products and services often complement rather than 
substitute for domestic digital products.  Also, with the rapid development of new digital products, 
cutting a market off from this more dynamic market is tantamount to cutting oneself off from 
innovation that is critical for growth.  On the moratorium idea, we view the responsible path would 
be to preserve the mo ratorium while we work on the outstanding issues, rather than risk an 
unpredictable environment for traders of all countries. Finally, while I have the floor, I  would  like to 
welcome everyone to join the United States and Norway this afternoon for a sessio n on digital trade.  
We have invited private sector representatives from the developed and developing world, including 
agriculture technology firms and farmers to talk about these issues with concrete examples. It w ill 
not get us out of rainy Geneva, but i t will nonetheless provide us with a perspective from the field 
that we do not often get. It is a good complement to the joint report 's findings and issues discussed 
today. I think the practical examples will helpfully inform Members ' views as they conside r their 
positions on the moratorium and work of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce.  
1.88.  The representative of Korea, Republic of  delivered the following statement:  
1.89.  I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your consistent dedication to the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce.  Thank you, international organization colleagues for your 
informative presentation. Korea believes today's presentation will significantly contribute to 
Members' understanding of the moratorium. We need to pay attention to the content on the 
Moratorium mentioned in the OECD and IMF report s in terms of evidence -based approach.  Korea 
would like to emphasize four key points regarding the moratorium, drawing from both the joint 
report and individual reports from the OECD and IMF . First, the potential consequences of a 
termination of the moratorium could involve several alarming scenarios, including heightened global 
economic uncertainty, an increased risk of a trade war due to retaliatory tariffs, a surge in global 
inflation, a s trong argument for diminishing the role of the WTO, government failure, and fairness 
issues. For example, in the digital realm, identifying every digital transaction is highly challenging. 
While some companies may dutifully declare their customs dut ies to the government, many others 
may fall into the temptation of not making declarations. This gives rise to issues of fairness as well 
as efficiency of market s. Digital companies adhering to tax regulations might encounter the challenge 
of raising prices, whil e other businesses evading customs dut ies enjoy a competitive pricing 
advantage. Such disparities could distort global e -commerce. In the market, there is a possibility of 
adverse selection where honest companies may fail, leaving only those engaging in ta x evasion. This 
issue can be more severe in developing countries and LDCs with limited digital capabilities to monitor 
digital transactions. We should always approach with caution, keeping in mind the possibility of 
government failure.  
1.90.  Second, the impositi on of tariffs on digital trade, even if it is feasible, undermines the 
efficiency of all national economies, irrespective of their development stage. Particularly, the OECD 
analysis demonstrate s that tariff imposition has the potential to significantly red uce digital exports 
and imports in developing countries and LDCs. While it may decrease consumer welfare in the short 
term, ultimately, it could undermine the economic development of the nation, because the role of 
digital goods and services as intermediar ies that enhance the productivity of the final goods is 
becoming increasingly significant. Therefore, it is crucial to recognize the need for the permanent 
extension of moratorium to ensure free digital trade, which is essential for the progress of develop ing 
countries and LDCs.  Third, we have a promising alternative in the form of VAT that can offset the 
reduction in tariff revenue. According to the IMF and OECD reports, the increasing volume of digital 
transactions quantitatively demonstrates the feasibil ity of this. We need to recall the origin of tariffs. 
It is based on the clarity of national borders and the ease of imposition during the analogue  era, but 
these advantages do not apply to digital e -commerce. It is a moment that calls for new thinking and  
approaches that align with the new digital era. In this regard, extending both  the moratorium and 
the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce is necessary to facilitate ongoing discussions among 
Members regarding the institutional frameworks and collaborati ve measures required for digital 
trade transactions. Korea believes that good ideas for securing policy space in developing countries 
and LDCs may emerge during such discussions.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.91.  Fourth, it should be noted that the inclusion of the moratorium in regional e -commerce 
agreements is common, and the definition and scope of the moratorium are also diverse, taking into 
account the varying national circumstances. In this regard, a flexible approach is necessary 
regarding the definition and scope of moratorium withi n the WTO.  In conclusion, Korea strongly 
believes that maintaining the practice of the moratorium on electronic transmissions is the minimum 
stability as well as the baseline that the WTO can provide for the fast -evolving digital trade.  
1.92.  The representative of European Union  delivered the following statement:  
1.93.  First of all, I would like to extend our appreciation to the five organisations for their work and 
efforts in putting together the report on Digital Trade for Development  and the presentation we had 
in the public forum and also today. As everyone in this room, we look forward to receiving the report. 
From what we hear, it looks like it will be a useful and extensive contribution, in particular for our 
discussion on the pos sible post MC13 work in the E-commerce Work Programme, that is one of the 
two elements in the Ministerial decision that we are looking to agree on at MC13. Turning to the 
moratorium on customs duties on e lectronic transmissions, the European Union is of th e view that 
the WTO e -commerce moratorium - that applies to all electronic transmissions, meaning electronic 
transmission itself as well as digital content that is transmitted electronically - is beneficial to 
businesses and consumers in developing and dev eloped countries. This understanding is backed by 
mounting evidence from numerous organisations and stakeholders that keep providing both 
quantitative or qualitative inputs. The moratorium prohibiting customs duties on electronic 
transmissions ensures that  consumers and companies have access to a wide choice of digitally 
transmitted content and technology, for example software, at competitive prices. The moratorium 
is as beneficial for SMEs as it is for bigger companies, if not more. We appreciate more and more 
analytical work done on the impacts of the moratorium and digital solutions on MSMEs, for example 
in India, Indonesia, South Africa and some other countries, demonstrating the benefits that MSMEs 
enjoy, including productivity gains, from digital solut ions and duty -free digital trade.  
1.94.  We have heard from business representatives, for example, during the Public Forum and on 
many other occasions, that imposing customs duties on digital inputs would create a cost 
disadvantage for a small, innovative softwa re developer, increase prices for local consumers, and 
reduce the developer's chances of developing an export business. This would likely interfere with 
the developer 's ability to scale regionally and hamper their ability to access regional and internation al 
markets. Business representatives have also repeatedly reiterated that the imposition of customs 
duties on electronic transmissions – or even maintaining policy space to do so – would affect 
investment and other business decisions and is therefore more likely to exacerbate, rather than 
address, the digital divide.  In terms of impacts of the moratorium on trade performance in different 
countries, the OECD study of 2023 estimated that the introduction of customs duties would reduce 
exports by 0.5% in high income countries, while low -income countries would be hit the hardest with 
reductions of 2.5% of exports. These are important estimations to consider in maintaining the e -
commerce moratorium in the WTO and highlight its importance to different geographical  regions and 
countries at different level s of development.  
1.95.  We appreciate having estimations on the extent of loss of government revenues that 
demonstrate the overall limited numbers/shares. But I just want to highlight that it is also clear, as 
we should k eep that in mind, that any  requirement to pay customs duties on electronic transmissions 
would impose a huge cost and administrative burden on companies and have a direct negative 
impact on all sectors of the economy that rely or use electronic transmissio ns. We also consider that 
the cost of putting together the customs duties system in this area and administrating it would be 
costly and extremely challenging for governments. The EU holds the view, that non -discriminatory 
taxation, and in particular indire ct taxes – such as value added taxes - are by far a more solid and 
feasible alternative to customs duties when it comes to electronic transmissions. Indirect taxes have 
a broader base, are better suited to the global nature of the digital economy and do no t have the 
trade-distortive effects of tariffs.  These are also the views that the IMF presented in their recent 
study on taxation v ersus customs duties, concluding that a VAT on electronic transmissions would 
yield about 150 % more potential revenue than ta riffs. A VAT would not distort consumption and 
production decisions like customs duties and would have minimal impact on economic output and 
welfare.  
1.96.  To conclude, the EU believes that it is crucial for businesses and consumers around the globe, 
and for th e multilateral trading system, that the moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions is extended at the upcoming MC 13. We have plenty of evidence supporting this WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 18 - 
 
  commitment and hope to have more. In line with the calls from industry around the globe, our 
overall objective remains a permanent ban that would only help to maximise the positive impacts of 
this commitment on the development of digital trade and fostering investment in digital solutions in 
developed and developing countries.  We apprec iate the strong support by the Membership to see 
both the Work Programme on E -commerce and the moratorium extended and look forward to 
continuing our work – based on evidence – towards a positive outcome at MC13.  
1.97.  The representative of  the United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
1.98.  The UK welcomes today 's discussion on the moratorium and the presentation on the upcoming 
report on Digital Trade for Development . We are looking forward to its publication.  The UK also 
welcomes the recent OECD report on Understanding the Potential Scope, Definition, and Impact of 
the WTO E -Commerce Moratorium , and the recent IMF report on Fiscal Revenue Mobilisation and 
Digitally Traded Products . These are valuable contributions to our evidence -based debate on the 
morator ium and demonstrate its positive impact on the growth of digital trade across the world.  To 
draw out three specific examples: (i) As highlighted this morning, the extent of the potential loss of 
customs revenue resulting from the moratorium is small – estimated to be below 0.33% of overall 
government revenue on average. (ii) Studies also show that the moratorium also supports trade 
certainty. To pick up on a point made by India this morning, I do  not think anyone is claiming that 
it is a 'magic bullet ', but it is a structural pillar of digital trade. Any architect will tell you that removing 
structural pillars risks the whole building falling down. It is not a coincidence that since the 
moratorium has been in place, digital trade has thrived, growing from  USD 1.26 trillion in 1998 to 
USD 5.1 trillion in 2018. The fact is that trade policy uncertainty reduces trade  and the impacts are 
higher for low - and middle -income countries. (iii) Recent studies have also shown that tariffs on 
electronic transmissions woul d reduce domestic competitiveness by making critical digital inputs 
more expensive, negatively affecting domestic production and employment. Again, as highlighted in 
the presentation this morning, smaller and women -owned firms would be impacted the most.  These 
studies, among others, demonstrate why it is crucial to maintain the moratorium. If not permanently 
– which remains the UK 's preference – then at least renew it again.  We have heard strong calls from 
Members to take a decision early and in advance of MC13. This is what the global business 
community is also calling for, and we look forward to the information session this afternoon to hear 
directly from businesses, including the farming sector.  
1.99.  The representative of UNCTAD  delivered the following stateme nt:  
1.100.   Thank you very much for the various comments made during this session. I just wanted to 
return to th e issue about the comparison between the VAT and the customs duties and to stress that 
the report  that will come out eventually  will not say that these are mutually exclusive issues . 
Obviously , whatever decision  the WTO Member s will take on the issue of the moratorium , there is 
no doubt that the issue of the VAT will remain a very important issue for all countries, as digital 
trade and digital comme rce, even domestically, is likely to grow as we head into the future.  It is 
also very important to note what has been mentioned by some of my colleagues , that collecting VAT 
in many of the low -income countries is still a struggle, b ut it will be very impo rtant that the capacity 
in these areas is strengthened as we move forward . Should Member s decide to open up  customs 
duties in this area, there is likely to be a need for lots of capacity building  also o n that area, because 
it has not been tested much to  date. Of course,  the particular challenge will be to collect taxes on 
non-resident sellers , but this is still the case, whatever the decision is on the moratorium in the 
WTO. This means that  in addition to the other barriers and issues that the low -income countries are 
facing in order to succeed in the area of digital trade , which are quite a few , we need to also include 
the question of revenue generation as part of the  things that we , as the global community , need to 
support in terms of building the capaci ty in the digital trade area.  
1.101.   The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:  
1.102.   At the outset, I would like to extend our appreciation to you , Madam Facilitator,  for your 
dedication in driving discussions within the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, especially 
with regard to the moratorium issue, and we also thank the representatives from other international 
organizations for their paper.  While we still need time to study those papers, we support the ongoing 
conversations regarding the  issue. But while doing so, we must also emphasize the importance of 
preserving policy space for the developing countries and LDCs, recognizing the evolving dynamics 
and development of this issue.  On this note, everyone know s that Indonesia continues to attach 
great importance to the issue of electronic transmission s in e-commerce, especially in terms of its WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 19 - 
 
  potential impacts to productivity and GDP growth, as well as the potential value of custom s revenues 
for developing coun tries and LDCs.  We want to point out that we should not take for granted that 
since the earliest inception of the moratorium in 1998, there have been unforeseen implications of 
said policy to the world of e -commerce and digital trade. This means that we sh ould continue to 
remain vigilant and anticipate such impacts.  A one -size-fits-all approach to regulating electronic 
transmissions would be detrimental to developing countries like Indonesia, which are still striving to 
bridge the digital divide.  
1.103.   The morato rium on customs duties on electronic transmission, however, raises concerns as 
it may perpetuate a dynamic where technologically advanced countries could potentially hinder the 
growth of others, relegating them to consumer roles rather than fostering their  development and 
competitiveness.  Developing countries require adequate policy space to implement strategies that 
align with their unique circumstances and development objectives. This flexibility is crucial for 
fostering their digital economies and enabli ng them to catch up with more advanced countries.  What 
we are saying is not just mere talk, but we are trying to find a way and show that it is possible. As 
we have presented at previous meetings, including at the Information Session held  jointly with Indi a 
and South Africa, we have obtained data that from May to August 2023, there is an import value of 
digital goods by electronic transmission using HS code 99.01 of nearly USD 250 million. However, 
this was met with opposition, but not from the business act ors, but rather from an organization, 
condemning what Indonesia is trying to do.  So, while Indonesia could support the results of the WTO 
MC12, including the decision on the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions , we 
remain convinced that  it is important to end said moratorium as one of the decisions in the 
forthcoming MC13, taking into account the absence of mutual agreement on the scope, definition, 
and impact of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmission s. In doing so, we will 
also ensure the availability of policy space for developing countries, so that they can equally benefit 
from digital technologies, and gain support for their domestic industries.  
1.104.   The representative of China  delivered the following statement:  
1.105.   Thank you, Madam Facilitator, for your tireless efforts in moving the discussions forward. 
China appreciates the joint report titled Digital Trade for Development  drafted by the five 
representative international organisations . We believe it would enhance Members ' understanding of 
the m oratorium related issues, and even facilitate their domestic consultation process. China looks 
forward to having the joint report at an early date. Based on China 's own experience, the feasibility 
of levy ing a custom duty on intangi ble items is still an issue that needs to be further explored. 
Moreover, over the last nearly three decades, electronic transmission without duty has been 
regarded as something natural by the business community. Collapse of the moratorium will cause 
additional burden and serious uncertainty to the development of the global digital economy and 
digital trade. It should not be a choice on the discussion agenda.      
1.106.   As an important driver in the rapid development of global e -commerc e, the moratorium is 
one of the most important multilateral outcomes achieved by the WTO in this area since 1998. China 
attaches great importance to the e -commerce discussions in the WTO and has always supported 
reinvigorating the Work Programme on E -comme rce. With a view to having a successful MC13 and 
creating predictable and stable environment for the industry, China supports extending the 
moratorium again at MC13, and we encourage all Members to actively and constructively engage in 
the relevant discuss ions with a view to delivering a positive outcome at MC13. Last but not least, 
the development dimension should always be at the core of the Work Programme on E -commerce . 
The relevant agenda should incorporate capacity building and technical support to the  developing 
Members, in particular LDCs.  
1.107.   The representative of Costa Rica  delivered the following statement:   
1.108.   I did not intend to take the floor because we will certainly need more time to analyse the 
report, but I did not want this to be misinterpreted a s a lack of interest on our part. On the contrary, 
Costa Rica has been very supportive of the moratorium since its inception, and we believe that it 
should instead become a permanent commitment so as to provide the sector with stable conditions. 
We also be lieve that the WTO's objectives include progressive liberalization, the reduction of barriers 
and trade facilitation, and we should not go in the opposite direction.  I would therefore like to express 
my appreciation for this morning's presentation and the participation of the international 
organizations that have worked on this study. We look forward to their subsequent discussions so 
as to learn about the elements of the study in greater detail. Based on what we have seen, I welcome WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 20 - 
 
  those elements of the s tudy that take into account the impact of the moratorium on competitiveness, 
economic growth and development.  While the moratorium is not a panacea nor the only measure 
that can be adopted to develop e -commerce, and while all developing countries ,  in part icular LDCs , 
benefit from it, it is most certainly a fundamental pillar for the development of the digital trade 
ecosystem.  The non -renewal of the moratorium will not contribute to reducing the digital divide 
either. On the contrary, in addition to its non -renewal not contributing to reducing the divide, it 
would also pave the way for the imposition of greater burdens on the development of e -commerce 
in developing countries.  
1.109.   The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
1.110.   Canada wishes to thank the Chief Economist to the WTO for the overview of the joint report 
by the OECD, IMF, WTO, UNCTAD, and World Bank, at the outset, and appreciate the presence of 
these organizations to answer questions and expand on the work in the re port. The discussion to 
date has been informative and insightful.  Like others, we look forward to receiving the report in the 
near term, as we are confident that it will support further important discussions in the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce ac ross digital trade issues, including of course the moratorium 
on customs duties.  On the moratorium, our intervention reflects what we have heard from a number 
of members today, in that we remain convinced that imposing notional tariffs on electronic 
transm issions is not the solution to support growth, as it will eventually be transferred to consumers 
worldwide. This view has been and continues to be shared broadly by our business community and 
stakeholders. The non -imposition of customs duties on electronic  transmissions is a long -standing 
practice of a majority of WTO Members. Absent the final joint report by the five international 
organizations at this time, we refer to the OECD and IMF papers which find that 95% of FTAs with 
electronic commerce chapters h ave provisions on not imposing customs duties on electronic 
transmissions.  
1.111.   We wish to highlight findings in the reports that a lapse in the moratorium and subsequent 
imposition of customs duties on electronic transmission s would have outsized and adverse e ffects 
for low -income countries and MSMEs.  It is important to emphasize that the OECD estimates for egone 
customs revenue from imposing a perfect customs duty on electronic transmissions is less than 
0.4% of total revenue, as was highlighted earlier in some  interventions , and the OECD as well. The 
knock -on effects of imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions outweigh this revenue gain: 
reducing domestic competitiveness, creating an uncertain trade environment, and disproportionately 
impacting MSMEs  and women -owned enterprises.  Canada agrees that with the finding that given 
the low fiscal costs and large second -order benefits, the moratorium should be renewed.  If the 
moratorium were to lapse, Canada agrees with the reports that attempting to capture all electronic 
transmissions at the border is impracticable. The difficulty of creating systems to capture electronic 
transmissions degrades the potential fiscal advantages of imposing customs duties.  
1.112.   As the IMF paper demonstrates, efforts to purse domesti c tax policy on electronic 
transmissions will yield more fruitful results than the imposition of customs duties. In purs uing these 
efforts, impacts on investment, employment, growth, and tax revenue should all be considered. We 
recognize the need for Membe rs to adapt their domestic regimes to the digital economy, and believe 
a predictable, non -discriminatory environment facilitated by the continuation of the current 
moratorium is essential while we continue our evidence -based discussions on moratorium, post -
MC13. In this respect, we are grateful to you Chair, for your tireless ongoing efforts to ensure that 
space is provided for these important ongoing discussions.  
1.113.   The representative of Thailand  delivered the following statement:  
1.114.   We would like to thank the Secretariat for presenting the joint paper and also extend our 
appreciation to international organizations here in the room, especially the OECD and IMF for tabling 
their paper s on the moratorium, which we found very comprehensiv e. We see that they are timely 
and greatly contribute to the intensification of our discussions on the e-commerce moratorium in the 
run-up to MC13. The results from both papers highlight that the moratorium would broadly create 
net positive impacts on the economy taking into account fiscal revenue, employment, and welfare . 
They also offer Members ' alternative policy options for consideration. Understanding that the results 
of quantitative studies can vary subject to specific sets of assumptions, variables, and source of 
data, current studies and papers have inspired and can be used for our domestic stud y which is in 
progress so that we can see the economic impacts more specific to ou r national context to guide us 
in designing the most effective tariff police s.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.115.   I had a chance to look into both papers and would like to provide preliminary reactions or 
suggestions for future studies or discussion on the following points . Firstly, the IMF paper highlights 
that it is necessary for developing countries to moderniz e the tax and customs infrastructure. So, it 
seems that the benefits or impacts of the moratorium are also subject to the current stage of 
domestic VAT infrastructure. In this respect, what are the best mechanism s or any existing 
mechanisms to address this  and assist developing countries to overcome this challenge and be able 
to reap the benefit s of the moratorium ? We are not sure if we will have an answer right away but 
we just want to state that we have to bear this point in mind as well.  Secondly, we wo uld like to 
echo some interventions made earlier that some areas can be explored further for the benefit of 
further discussion, for example, feasibility and efficiency of imposing customs duties, duplications of 
tariffs and VAT and its effects, as well as distributional impacts of selected sectors that are 
significant ly or most affected. The dynamic effects of policy choices would be insightful. It 
would  enable us to see economic impacts overtime from multipliers effects rather static 
"first-round " effects.  
1.116.   The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement:  
1.117.   Singapore welcomes this discussion, and we thank the hard work put into this by all the 
international organizations as well as the Secretariat. First, I would like to echo the UK that the 
moratorium is one important structural pillar that supports digital industrialisation. In fact, the lack 
of awareness in LDC s and in fact many MSMEs seem to su ggest that this longstanding practice has 
been taken for granted. As Singapore has articulated at the earlier Dedicated Discussion , we believe 
that digital education and ups caling  are important pillars for digital industrialization.  Second, we 
concur with Trinidad and Tobago and China that imposing customs duties ha s huge technical 
feasibility challenges. In view of the IMF report, VAT has greater operational feasibility and also 
higher efficiency. For these reasons, Singapore is of the view that we should focus on what is 
practically useful. From Singapore 's end, we hope to share in due course a case study on our VAT 
practice, which will also outline how we tackle some of the challenges that Pakistan shared earlier. 
Third, to respond to the Facilitator 's appeal, I would like to pose a question to the  international 
organisations : how do we support developing countries and LDC s to think about tax reforms in this 
area to help them to gain revenue and not impact their digital economy growth inadvertently? We 
would be curious to hear actionable policy steps that can be undertaken to help developing countries 
and LDC s reap benefits from the rapidly growing digital economy, as the Chief Economist outlined 
at the start of his presentation.  
1.118.   The representative of Chine se Taipei  delivered the following statement:  
1.119.   We welcome the sharing  of information  from the international organizations today. While 
acknowledging  that additional time may be needed for assessment, we are of the view that it goes 
in the right direction to foster evidence -based discussions.  In our initial reflections, we appreciate 
that the current IMF and OECD reports point out possible implications and effectiveness of different 
fiscal tools based on empirical statistics. We see the value of referring to c urrent trade practices in 
most RTAs to develop understandings on the non-imposition of customs duties on electronic 
transmission s. Besides, a holistic approach is required to evaluate the moratorium beyond its fiscal 
implications. This involves identifying  potential benefits of the moratorium and costs associated with 
its lapse, particularly the risks of uncertainty in  the digital trade environment.  Lastly, we heard calls 
by a majority of Members, including more and more developing and LDC Members, urg ing the 
extension of the moratorium at MC13.  We look forward to the upcoming complete report which , in 
our view , would help facilitate in -depth discussi ons.  
1.120.   The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
1.121.   We echo previous speakers in expressing our appreciation to Ambassador  Canabady for her 
effective conduct of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce work . We also thank M r. Ralf 
Ossa an d the representatives of the international organizations for sharing with us in advance the 
points of their joint project . We certainly look forward to looking into and learning from the final 
joint report, when published. We would like to offer some point s on moratorium, which we think is 
one of the most discussed items  at the dedicated session meetings of the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce. Japan is in a position to support a permanent non -imposition regime of 
customs duties, and, at MC13, we consi der it essential to at least extend it, from a viewpoint of the 
expectation by the global business community on the WTO.  On the scope/definition, we propose that WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 22 - 
 
  the definition of electronic tran smissions and the scope of the moratorium includes content, a s the 
joint communication by Japan and co-sponsors provides.   
1.122.   On industrialization, let me rephrase it as "development of business activities ", our view is 
that for todays ' global business activities, including, if not particularly, those of MSMEs, it  is essential 
(i) to utilize, first as a consumer, global digital products and services as low -cost and free of stress  
as possible, and then (ii) to have access, as a supplier, to global digital market s. In the global 
market, a business entity is a consumer an d at the same time a supplier in this sense, and with such 
conditions, the moratorium is a key factor for an effective participation in the global digital value 
chain of business entities, particularly MSMEs.  The moratorium has offered, for more than 20 ye ars, 
stability and predictability in digital trade both for business entities and for consumers, and thus 
supported the development of digital trade. One also needs to recognize that lifting the moratorium 
today, there fore, would bring in unpredictability and instability to  the digital trade and business 
environment, in the sense that there is no telling when, where and how one should be prepared for 
changes in the cost and conditions of the digital transactions.  
1.123.   As for government revenues, as pointed out by the IMF, VAT or other type s of domestic 
taxes are more practical measures to bring in more government revenue. We understand that there 
are diverse ways among Members of implementing VAT or other domestic taxes; Japan uses 
consumption tax for taxation on digital transmission. The g ood new s is that Members have various 
working and effective examples today of VAT or domestic taxes to refer to. We would like to see 
Ministers decide on the continuation of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce as well as the 
extension , at least , of the moratorium at MC13, unless Members come to decide it before the 
Ministerial.  
1.124.   The representative of Egypt  delivered the following statement:   
1.125.   I have read the abstracts and the conclusions,  and I will make time to read the studies which 
are precious  and de finitely would add to the pool of evidence to get to the fou ndations on which we 
will be able to make a decision going forward . I was listening to the interventions and the interaction s 
that ha ve taken place today and I thought of a country 'X', and I made the assumption that we did 
not have the moratorium altogether and that this country 'X' had a  customs duty  of 1%  on whatever 
we might agree could be electronic transmissions or transactions. Since 1998  until 2023, this country 
'X' would have  lost a big amount of money. If this 1% could  generate USD 100 million a year, then 
this country 'X' would have lost more than USD 2.6 billion dollars  since 1998 . This amount of money 
is an amount that could be used in different budgetary allocations, healthcare, infrastructure 
development, education. So , this is an opportunity that country 'X' has lost due to the morator ium.  
1.126.   I believe that , in order for us to complement the data that we have in those studies , we may 
subject some of the countries in this room to some sort of  special analysis or assessment  through a 
study that could be both backward -looking and forward -looking . The backward -looking  strategy 
could assess and evaluate the implications of the whole m oratorium on the economic diversification 
of that country  and o n the strategies that the government used or did not used to bring about  the 
economic diversity that they would have needed just to make it up or to compensate for the losses 
that they experienced  due to the moratorium. The study could also a ssess the effects  of the 
moratorium on investment in the  high-tech sector  and growth with respect to the sector in th e 
country under study, including with respect to the implications on startups and MSMEs. It could 
additionally a ssess t he implications of the moratorium on the competitive landscape and global 
implications for that countr y's position regionally and internationally  and evaluate t he trade -offs to 
see if those countries were able to diversify their economies in a manner that compensated for 
that loss.  
1.127.   Then the second part of the study could be forward -looking , futuristic and tell us, if we  are 
going to have the moratorium over the next 10 years, what exactly is the situation going to be in 
that same  country under study? Is the country in a position to diversify its econom y with this revenue 
foregone ? Can the government use internal taxes like VAT to have the policy space they need to 
generate the income that they need to either support the budgets or develop their industries ? Let 
us not forget here that  customs  duties  is one of the policy tools  that cou ntries use  together with  
internal taxes  – so, they are not mutually exclusive, and each of the tools really has its own purpose 
and should be assessed.  If we are going to give away one of the tools, then we have to know exactly 
what we  are doing. So , the future forward -looking study would really assess the implications  of the WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 23 - 
 
  moratorium on that country or the group of countries with respect to their economic diversification, 
economic resilience and ability to develop the sector and develop their start ups and MSMEs .  
1.128.   The representative of the WTO delivered the following statement:   
1.129.   Thank you very much for  all these great comments and  also the many words of appreciation. 
I also heard the homework that you have for us, to do more work in this, which is also great  to hear 
because at the end of the day, we  are trying to be helpful and supportive and give you the 
information that you need to ma ke your choices. I just wanted to repeat one thing that I already 
said in my last intervention, which is that this current study is almost  done so, I do  not think we  will 
be able to add these  suggestions to that study . So do not  be disappointed if the sugg estions are  not 
incorporated right away. But we  would  be very interested in pushing this work  forward . You can talk 
to me at any  time, but maybe not so easily to our guests from the  other organisations. Let me hand 
over the floor to them and see if they have any responses. There w ere some concrete questions for 
example on how we help  LDCs to tax the digital economy and so on.  
1.130.   The representative of the OECD  delivered the following statement:   
1.131.   First of all, let me thank you again for the very good discussion that we  are having here , and 
I too have been taking vigorous notes of all the homework that we have to do in the future. I believe 
this is a dialogue that is going to be ongoing . There were a lot of questions,  and I do  not think I can 
do credit  to all of them, but maybe I can leave you with three key points. First of all, the evidence 
suggests that it is clear that the moratorium does not limit the ability to regulate or to apply internal 
taxation, and I think that  is a really important point  and something that has come across. The second 
really important point , where there seems to be very strong agreement , is that the moratorium 
tends to come or would come at a very small cost in terms of the fiscal implications . The IMF study , 
the OECD study , studies done by Simon Evenett , and studies done by others, all suggest a relatively 
small cost. The other element that is really important and that is coming out in the literature , 
including in the OECD work is that these costs  as a result of  the removal of the moratorium would 
come at the expense of other really important  benefits , export competitiveness, domestic 
competitiveness, ability of SMEs and women -owned enterprises to access international markets . 
I think all of these things need to be bo rne in mind . As the UK and others said, the moratorium is a 
cornerstone of this evolving environment. The moratorium has supported the digitalization of trade , 
and provided important benefits, including during COVID -19 and therefore we believe that the 
removal of the moratorium would have a  negative impact on all of this, as the OECD study shows.  
1.132.   I also wanted to reply to the comment made  by Singapore  about helping developing 
countries trying to deal with the forthcoming tax challenges of digitalization . I wanted to point to 
you that the OECD has developed with the World Bank and with other international organisations,  
some regional toolkits that are very specifically targeted  to the regional taxation challenges . These 
are being referenced in the joint report  – and certainly referenced in one of the boxes in the OECD 
studies . I would be happy if you want to contact me to put you in touch with some of the colleagues 
across the different organisations t hat I have been working with on these tax ation challenges. Thank 
you very much again and always I'm available on e -mail to have any discussion.  
1.133.   The representative of UNCTAD  delivered the following statement:   
1.134.   I just wanted to very quickly respond to th e question about how to support developing 
countries and especially low -income countries in the area of indirect taxation and V AT. D uring the  
eWeek there will be a session specifically on indirect taxation of e -commerce  and digital trade , 
implications for developing countries. It will take place on Tuesday , 5 December, between 10:00 
and 11:30 , for those of you who may be interested . We will have participation from experts from 
the O ECD, from the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF)  and Inter-American Centre of Tax 
Administration (CIAT) from Latin America and other experts, and hopefully that can also  be 
informative in the context of future discussions on the mo ratorium.  
1.135.   The representative of  the World Bank  delivered the following statemen t:  
1.136.   If we all produced the definitive report, we  would  be out of a  job. So , this is permanent 
work-in-progress and learning by doing , in a field  that is still  a field of discovery, both in terms of 
economic impacts, policy responses and so on. I think we have to have that humility of saying this WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 10 
 
- 24 - 
 
  is not the last word on these issues. This discussion has been very useful in also identifying areas 
where further work  is needed. I will be presenting this afternoon in the C ommittee on Trade and 
Development (CTD)  on Aid for Trade, the results of a recent World Bank  and WTO study on how to 
revive  negotiations and cooperation in services more broadly, including, of course,  in digital . It will 
be a call to the donor community , given that it  is the CTD , to direct more resources to some of the 
challenges we face and heard about this morning. The first one of these challenges  is data  –  not 
only producing, but collecting, disseminating, analysing, assessing impacts and so on. We have a 
data challenge on our hands for services more broadly and for digital in particular . One other Aid for 
Trade priority that I  am going to emphasise is, of course, helping developin g countries and 
particularly least developed countries  harness the development benefits of digitization. This means 
interventions at the firm  level. This is what a lot of development institutions , such as the World 
Bank, are trying to do , but we cannot do that without the support of the international community 
and us ing also the deliberative function of both committees and the  WTO m ore broadly, to bring 
lessons to bear on how we move forward together in addressing what remain s for many Members  
of this organi zation. A field that is still not only novel but also one faced with a lot of challenges in 
harnessing the benefits that are there but will require assistance in moving us forward. So , I invite 
you to come to the CTD meeting this afternoon i f you want to hear more about  what we  have to say  
on these issues.   
1.137.   The Chairperson  thanked all the international organisations for taking time to be present at 
the meeting  and the WTO Secretariat  for sharing the findings of the report. She noted that , while 
not completed yet , the findings allowed at least a first discussion  to take place and she was certain 
that there would  be other opportunities to discuss in the future. In her view, it was important to see 
the bigger picture  on digital trade for deve lopment and how the moratorium fit in. On a practical 
term, she reminded delegations to send their written statements to the WTO Secretariat to be 
reflected in the Minutes of the meeting by close of business the following day. She r ecalled that the 
next de dicated discussions would  be on 8 Decembe r and 25 January . She said that n ational positions 
were not taken on the basis of reports,  and that all delegations knew that . However, in her view the 
reports were always useful in providing information and guiding decisions . She noted that Members 
had reached a point in the discussion  where all  knew each other's p ositions, whether it  was the 
extension of the moratorium or whether was having a moratorium on the moratorium . She had also 
heard from the discussi ons at the present meeting some language or some suggestion that maybe 
there  was a way to find a carve -out for women , MSMEs  if Members arrived at an actual discussion 
on this at some point. She recalled that the mandate was to look at the scope , definition and impact 
and to see whether Members could agree on a way forward. In that regard, d elegations needed to 
come forward with proposals because there was  not much time left.  In terms of the way forward, 
she hoped to be able to hold consultations before the next session  but was not sure if this would be 
possible . In her view, it was time to start looking at possible text ual language  and she hoped that 
the next discussion would  focus on that. S he said that language was needed both on the Work 
Programme  and on the moratorium . She encouraged Members to come up with draft language as it 
was them that were in  the driving seat. She added that delegations should speak to each other  and 
not only speak through her as facilitator. The dialogue should not only be limited to Geneva - it had 
to continue at higher levels as well. In that regard, Members should urge their principals who 
attended the senior officials  meeting  to push the level of dialogue a little bit higher as that might 
provide further guidance in what Members were trying to achieve. She thanked delegations for their 
participation.  
1.138.   The meeting was adjourned . 
________