TN/CTD/34  
 
24 July 2018 
(18-4690) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Special Session    
 
 REPORT BY THE CHAIRP ERSON OF THE COMMITT EE ON TRADE AND DEVE LOPMENT IN 
SPECIAL SESSION, AMB ASSADOR TAN YEE WOAN  (SINGAPORE),  
TO THE TRADE NEGOTIA TIONS COMMITTEE  
_______________  
 
 
1.1.   Members will recall that at the informal TNC/HODs meeting held on 7 May I  presented a 
detailed report on the consultations that I had undertaken early this year. I had said that I 
intended to begin another round of consultations in variable geometry that would focus on some of 
the points highlighted in my report, and that in my  view needed further exploration. With this in 
mind, on 16  May I sent a fax to Members announcing my intention to hold a second round of 
consultations from early June.  
1.2.   In the fax, I posed four questions that I thought would be useful to guide the consulta tions 
and to build on the issues and ideas that had emerged in my earlier consultations in April. The 
questions were the following:  
1. How does the envisaged case study methodology of work differ from what the G90 
have been doing in providing examples in t he detailed elaborations on the 10 S&D proposals 
in the run up to MC11?  
2. Since the case study methodology would require facts, data and other kinds of 
detailed preparation and engagement, will there be Members who would volunteer to be the 
subject of suc h case studies?  
3. What are Members' views on some of the ideas that were flagged during the previous 
consultations, including: (i) that a country specific issue -based approach could benefit from 
the concrete examples that might be available in the Trade Policy Review (TPR) knowledge 
base; (ii) that the dispute settlement jurisprudence could be another source; and (iii) that 
lessons could be learnt from the work and experience of other intergovernmental 
organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF and oth er WTO Committees' wor k on 
development.  
4. As far as the concerns over the heterogeneity of the group of developing country 
Members is concerned, the question is that while there could possibly be scope for creative 
S&D to be negotiated in future WTO trad e rules, how could the suggestions for according 
S&D on a case -by-case basis and voluntary opt -out basis apply to current WTO trade rules?  
1.3.   Fifty-eight Members conveyed that they would attend the consultations, of which 45 
eventually participated. I met th ese Members in three different groups in variable geometry on 4, 
6 and 8  June 2018.  
1.4.   Even though some delegations responded directly to each of the posed questions, most of 
the discussions were free -flowing and interactive. Most delegations were open to a ny suggestions 
and new ways that could help unlock the current stalemate. Discussions centred primarily around 
the case -by-case and case study approaches. Some delegations that had already expressed a 
strong objection to such approaches seemed, nonetheless , prepared to listen.  
1.5.  Following are some of my take -aways from these consultations.  TN/CTD/34  
 
- 2 - 
 
  (a) Fresh approach  
1.6.   Some developing Members reiterated that instead of fresh approaches, what was needed 
was the w ill to make progress on the G90' s agreement -specific pro posals (ASPs). Compared with 
previous years, the G90 had already adopted a different approach to their ASPs in 2017. They had 
explained in detail and backed up with facts and figures on the concerns they were seeking to 
address and the solutions they propo sed to make the S&D provisions more precise, effective and 
operational in line with paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  
1.7.   One Member believed there was a misperception that all ten of the G90 's ASPs were about 
seeking additional policy space or exemptions  from obligations. On the contrary, only three ASPs 
pertained to policy space. For example, of the remaining ASPs those on SPS and TBT pertained to 
keeping the momentum of exports; those on Article XVIII A & C sought to improve on current 
procedures so as to make them user friendly for the developing country Members and the LDCs; 
the proposal on balance -of-payments was also about improving procedures under Article XVIII B 
with a view to take account of the development perspective and also to distinguish it from 
Article  XII of GATT 19 94.  
1.8.   Some Members believed a fresh approach was needed as there was a strong sense of 
fatigue from the repetitive discussion that rehashed old approaches in the CTD SS. The 
membership should seize on the greater willingness show n at MC11 to talk about trade and 
development to have a different discussion on development, and to find a way forward for a more 
productive dialogue. Some suggested that it would be useful to distinguish between existing and 
new rules.  In this regard, so me felt that fresh approaches could be considered for new rules and 
not for existing rules.  Some c autioned against pursuing "new"  approaches for current WTO 
provisions as it would upset the delicate balance of rights and obligations struck at the conclusi on 
of the Uruguay Round; the S&D provisions could not be considered in isolation from the other 
provisions.   
(b) Case-by-case approach and voluntary opt -out 
Case-by-case approach  
1.9.   Some developing country Members firmly reiterated that consideration of a case-by-case 
approach did not fall within the purview of the CTD SS. Moreover, it departed from the principle of 
S&D for all developing country Members and hence contrary to the very foundation on which the 
multilateral trading system was built. S&D was a right, and developing Members did not need to 
prove/justify their case. It was up to them whether or not they wanted to exercise the right. 
Additional views that had been expressed against a case -by-case approach included the following:  
- It would be tanta mount to carrying a new accessions exercise or a new trade policy 
review, all of which were highl y costly endeavours.  
- It was possible that some Members might be in better position than others to obtain 
and present information for such a demanding and inquisitive exercise. Therefore, this 
could lead to a situation in which S&D might not necessarily be given to the most 
needy but only to the best prepared.  
- It contravened the principle of S&D which was general in nature.   
In the view of these Members, a case -by-case approach would not work, particularly when applied 
to existing rules.  
1.10.   Some developed country Members said t hat until the issue of differentiation among 
developing Members was addressed, discussion on S&D would not make any headway. Some 
developing country Members agreed with this view. Some delegations supported establishing clear 
criteria for differentiation.   
1.11.   Some Members said that before tackling differentiation, we should first engage on the 
substance of the issues the G90 wanted to address. Since any possible additional flexibilities would TN/CTD/34  
 
- 3 - 
 
  likely vary from issue to issue, it would be more productive to con sider differentiation at a later 
stage.   
Voluntary opt -out 
1.12.   Members also discussed a possible opt -out approach wherein some developing country 
Members could opt -out of flexibilities they did not actually need. One Member believed that the 
concept of opt -out was not new, and was already embodied in paragraph 7 of the Enabling Clause. 
While some Members were open to exploring this possibility, it was felt that such approach should 
not, in any way, preclude any Member's right to benefit from the S&D available in the WTO 
Agreements. A bigger question was what the Membership would do in a situation if one Member 
decided not to opt -out from a provision while other Member(s) held the view that such Member 
should opt -out. Another related issue was whether this appro ach, which stemmed primarily from 
the three categories obligations methodology in the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), should 
apply to current provisions or only to future agreements. Some delegations insisted that the S&D 
was premised on the principle that all developing country Members were eligible to benefit from 
the flexibilities in the WTO rules and that the mandate of the CTD SS specifically referred to the 
existing provisions. Referring to the TFA, some developing country Members said that it had  
validated that Members could be trusted not to seek flexibilities that they did not need.   
(c) Case study methodology  
1.13.   There were many calls for proponents of a case study methodology to table proposals 
elaborating on the modalities and defining the param eters for carrying out the case studies.  
1.14.   While many developing country Members showed flexibility to try new approaches, they also 
insisted that the G90's proposals remained on the table and should be addressed with a fresh eye. 
Some believed that the info rmation provided by the G90 on each ASP in the run -up to MC11 was 
exactly what was being proposed in a case study approach. There was also a suggestion that the 
case studies could be presented by the developed country Members to explain why they were 
again st the ASPs. Questions were also raised as to the parameters of a case study and the need 
for good faith; some recalled past experience at other WTO bodies when studies could not proceed 
due to blockage by some.   
1.15.   Some Members, including proponents of a cas e study approach, said that though they did 
not know if a case study approach would work, they believed it was worth exploring as a way to 
focus discussions in a manner that would allow the membership to be able to better understand 
the problems being enco untered and how the flexibilities being sought would pan out, rather than 
jumping into negotiations per se .  
Difference from G90' s approach last year  
1.16.   Some developed country Members explained why they ha d had difficulties with the G90' s 
approach in 2017. Fo r example, while it was good that the G90 had cited the cases of specific 
developing members when introducing the ASPs, there had not been any deeper discussion of the 
specifics of those situations, such as why certain trade restrictive measures were used,  why the 
existing rules were considered more restrictive than necessary, and how the solution(s) proposed 
in the ASPs would help.  One delegation said that any discussion on S&D must be guided by the 
following elements for the discussion to move forward:  
• Identify the rule that needed to be more flexible and in what way . 
• Identify in an explicit and concrete manner the challenges and handicaps that the 
existing rule posed.  
• Carry out an economic analysis to determine the impact and implications of 
change /amendment in the rule and difference it would make if the rule was not 
changed/amended . 
• Explain how the changes would affect other Members, including developing country 
Members and the LDCs . TN/CTD/34  
 
- 4 - 
 
  • Establish the duration of the flexibility . 
• Explicitly spec ify the Members to whom the flexibility would apply . 
1.17.   Furthermore, if one or a few developing country Members were affected, a better course of 
action could be to consider peace clauses or waivers, rather than a one -size-fits-all approach of 
seeking changes  that will apply to all developing country Members. Other delegations also 
expressed similar views during the course of the consultations.   
Volunteers and sources of information  
1.18.   With regard to the database and information contained in the TPR reports and the WTO 
jurisprudence or that might be available with other international organizations, most developing 
country Members and LDCs in particular highlighted that (a) it was unlikely that adequate 
information/data would be available in the TPR reports on the  S&D provisions ; (b) they were not 
the main users of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism ; and (c) that, in any case, the information 
that could possibly be drawn would be very specific to one country or one issue, and, therefore, its 
utility was questionable.  It was also mentioned that the information contained in the TPRs was 
cyclical and would not necessarily be up to date, apart from the fact that it would also apply to one 
Member or, at best, a very limited number of Members. One delegation said that when it had tried 
to introduce elements from other WTO Committees' discussions into the CTD SS in the run -up to 
MC11 it was rejected outright with the argument that such issues should be discussed in their 
respective specific committees and not in the CTD SS. I n respect of other international 
organisations, delegations seemed open to exploring the possibility of benefitting from the 
informat ion available with other organiz ations.   
Not so burdensome as to be impossible  
1.19.   Some Members cautioned that coming up with the appropriate case studies should not be so 
burdensome as to be impossible. The burden for building case studies should not fall solely on 
those who might be the subject of the studies. Assistance for building the case studies could come 
from other Membe rs, the Secretariat, academics or consultants.  
1.20.   Some Members emphasiz ed that care should be taken to ensure no negative or unintended 
consequences for those who would be the subject of case studies.   
(d) New suggestion  
1.21.   A fresh and interesting idea that eme rged from the consultations was, that as a test case, 
the G90 could identify one or two of their ASPs to explore deeper the feasibility of a case study 
approach. There were further suggestions that the one or two ASPs to be chosen be the ones the 
G90 consi ders to be the most likely to get convergence by MC12. Work on the identified proposals 
would also help to guide and determine whether this modality could be replicated for the 
remaining ASPs or the Membership needed to consider different methodologies/app roaches for 
different ASPs. Many delegations showed interest in this idea, and several, including from among 
developing country and LDC Members said that they would be willing to try it. It was, however, 
made clear that it was important that the G90, who w ere the proponents of the ASPs, agree to the 
initial identification/selection of the proposal(s) to test out possible methodologies.   
(e) Broad trade and development discussion  
1.22.   One Member was convinced that it would be impossible to advance discussions in the 
CTD SS, regardless of approach or the number of ASPs to be considered. Instead, it was important 
to take time to discuss, as part of a broader conversation on trade and development, the 
fundamental disagreement on the relationship between trade rules a nd development. This Member 
believed trade rules were positive building blocks for development. The objective of S&D was the 
full implementation of WTO rules by every Member. If some Members had problems implementing 
some of the rules, the solution was to discuss the reasons and how these Members might 
overcome the problems. However, some developing Members did not share this view; instead, 
they believed that trade rules were onerous, unfair and anti -development, and that the objective TN/CTD/34  
 
- 5 - 
 
  of S&D was to avoid c ommitments and certain rules.  This Member said that progress on the issue 
of differentiation was vital for considering future work in the CTD SS.   
1.23.   Another Member suggested that we should think out of the box and engage in a 
fundamental relook of the over all approach to S&D, including, for example, why S&D could not be 
for all members, the administration of which would depend on whether their individual situations 
warranted it?   
1.24.   Most other Members said the CTD SS had a clear mandate as contained in paragra ph 44 of 
the Doha Declaration, and work should continue accordingly. They agreed that the broader debate 
on trade and development had to take place, but not in the CTD SS and may be not even in the 
committee structures of the WTO. Several pointed out that this debate had been taking place in 
UNCTAD, and that several of the concrete ideas for S&D, such as GSP and the Enabling Clause had 
originated from prior discussions and consensus in UNCTAD. Nevertheless, one delegation said 
that this discussion should st art in the CTD SS until Members decided what the appropriate forum 
should be.  
(f) Conclusion  
1.25.   I believe that we are starting to have a different conversation that is worth pursuing further. 
The degree of engagement was good, and most Members seemed to be in  a problem -solving 
mode. For example, the suggestion for a case study methodology was made in the spirit of trying 
to find ways for moving forward and elevate discussion. Regardless of where Members stand, most 
are prepared, on a non -prejudicial basis, to consider the feasibility of case study methodology to 
examine the issu es of concern raised in the G90' s ASPs.   
1.26.   Nevertheless, we are still at the level of generalities and in an exploratory mode. Some 
delegations were concerned about investing a lot of eff ort and time into considering new 
approaches, including the case study approach, only to conclude that it was not practicable. 
However, it was also pointed out that the situation at hand was between finding new ways forward 
to re-engage on substance, or co ntinued disengagement on substantive discussions in the CTD SS. 
The need for good faith was essential.   
1.27.   My view remains that the G90 proposals tabled in 2017 merit a fresh look in their 
substance. It is only when we have an open -minded and deeper apprecia tion of what the 
substantive concerns are, that we may arrive at informed views as to the possible solutions to 
them. The G90' s 2017 proposals had attempted to take into consideration the observations that 
had been made by Members on their proposals in the  2015 process. There was very little time to 
discuss the technical and substantive elements of the proposals in the run up to MC11, although 
lack of time was not the only factor contributing to the lack of engagement on the substance of the 
G90’s proposals  in 2017.   
1.28.   Of course, the new approaches being proposed would still need to be explored deeper, but I 
have sensed a change in the disposition of Members to discuss and engage after MC11 and the 
meeting in New Delhi.   
1.29.   It is also clear that if we do not ad dress the broader trade and development issues it will be 
very difficult to get any results at MC12. Hence, whether or not they would be dealt with in the 
CTDSS, such discussions should start soon.   
1.30.   As for the way forward, I will continue my consultations  with Members in various 
configurations and formats to narrow our focus and define our work methods for the CTD SS.  
1.31.   This concludes my report.  
 
 
__________