RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
6 February 2019  
(19-0672) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Trade and Development  
107th Session    
 
  
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 21 NOVEMBER  2018 
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Diego Aulestia (Ecuador)  
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ....................  2 
B. OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  2 
(I) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers  ................................ ................................ .. 3 
(II) Further consideration of requests for observer status by the League of Arab States, the 
Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Gulf Organization for Industrial 
Consulting, the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie , the Common Fund for 
Commodities, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Expo rting Countries (OAPEC) and th e 
Groupe de la Banque Africaine de Développement  ................................ ................................ ... 3 
C. REPORT OF THE 52ND SESSION OF THE JOIN T ADVISORY GROUP ON THE 
INTERNATIONAL TRA DE CEN TRE UNCTAD/WTO (ITC/ AG(LII )/272)  ...............................  3 
D. TRADE AND DEVELOPMEN T – WORK IN THE COMM ITTEE ON THE BASIS O F THE 
CHAIRMAN'S CONCLUDIN G STATEMENT FROM THE  EIGHTH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE 
(WT/MIN(11)/11)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
- Committee on Trade and Development Mandate: Focal Point for Consideration and 
Coordination of Work on Development in the WTO – Proposal from B arbados, Belize, China, Cuba, 
Ecuador, India, and the African Group (WT/COMTD/W/208)  ................................ .....................  5 
- Operationalization of the CTD's Mandate: a Proposa l to Deliver Outcomes based on the MC8 
Mandate – Proposal from Chin a, Cuba, Ecuador, India and the  
African Group (WT/COMTD/W/192)  ................................ ................................ .......................  5 
E. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  ................................ ....................  8 
- Implementation of the Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements – Status 
Report on the Committee's Work  ................................ ................................ ..........................  8 
(I) Notifications received pursuant to Enabling Clause (Paragraph 4(a))  ................................ . 8 
-  Notification of Regional Trade Agreement – Submitted by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, 
Paraguay and Uruguay (WT/COMTD/N/53) – Request from the United  States  .............................  9 
(II) Communication from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico , Paraguay and Uruguay in reply  
to the document WT/COMTD/W/232 (WT/COMTD/W/238)  ................................ ........................  9 
(III)  Status of the preparation of factual presentations - Report by the Chairman 
(WT/COMTD/W/240)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 
- Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Notification of Cus toms Union – Communication from  
China, Egypt and India (WT/COMTD/W/175)  ................................ ................................ ......... 11 
- Notification of the Comprehensive Economic Partners hip Agreement between India and  
Korea (Goods)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 2 - 
 
  F. TEMPLATE FOR NOTIFYI NG CHANGES TO AN EXI STING REGIONAL TRADE  
AGREEMENT – PROPOSAL  BY THE COMMITTEE ON  REGIONAL TRADE AGRE EMENTS TO 
THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS , THE COUNCIL FOR TR ADE IN SERVICES AND THE 
COMMITTEE ON TRADE A ND DEVELOPMENT (WT/R EG/28) ................................ ............  13 
G. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE TRANSPARENCY MEC HANISM FOR PREFERENTI AL 
TRADE ARRANGEMENTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 14 
- Implementation of the Transparency Mechanism for Preferential Trade Arrangements – 
Status Re port on the Committee's Work  ................................ ................................ ............... 14 
 -   Status of the Preparation o f Factual Presentations – Report by t he Chairman  
(WT/COMTD/W/241)  ................................ ................................ ................................  14 
H. ANNUAL REVIEW OF STE PS TAKEN TO PROVIDE DUTY -FREE AND QUOTA -FREE 
MARKET ACCESS TO LEA ST DEVELOPED COUNTRI ES ................................ ......................  14 
I. WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  ................................ .................  15 
J. DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018 (WT/COMTD/W /242)  ................................ ..... 16 
K. DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING ................................ ................................ .................  18 
L. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1. The Chairman  said that the draft agenda for the 107th Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (CTD) was contained in document WTO/AIR/COMTD/15/Rev.1, circulated on 
9 November 2018. He indicated that he wished to make a n intervention under "Other Business" to 
clarify the procedures to request, and maintain, an item on the CTD agenda.  
2. The agenda was adopted  as amended.  
B. OBSERVERS   
3. The Chairman  recalled that , at the last meeting, he had indicated his intention to work with 
Members to see what could be done to update and reinvigorate the agenda of the CTD's Regular 
Session. One of the issues that he had though t could be worked on in this regard related to 
observers. He recalled that he had pointed out at the last meeting that the Committee had been 
inviting a number of international organizations as ad hoc observers on a meeting -by-meeting basis 
for many years  – in several cases since 1999. He had asked whether Members could  consider 
granting permanent observer status to these organizations, so that the Committee would not have 
to revisit the item relating to ad hoc  observers at each meeting. He had also noted  at the last 
meeting  that the requests by some organizations for permanent observer status had been pending 
for many years . He had therefore  invited Members to once again consider their positions vis-à-vis 
each one of these requests. In addition, he had indicated his intentio n to write to the organizations 
in question to ask them whether there  was s till interest on their side to be granted observer status 
in the C TD.  
4. He went on to say that, since the last meeting, he had had the opportunity to discuss issues 
relating to observers with some delegations. In the course of the discussions, he had noted some 
apprehension to revisit these issues, in particular since positions had not changed. As a consequence,  
he had not pursued the matter any further, and considered that it was no longer pertinent to write 
to the organizations with pending observer status. He explained that h is intention in raising these 
issues relating to observers had simply been to explore whether this could be one of the areas where 
the CTD 's agenda could be upd ated. However, if s ome Members were not keen to re visit these issues 
at the present  time, he suggest ed that the Committee go back to the practice that it had been 
following for many years. In particular , the Committee would continue to invite a number of 
organizations on an ad hoc  meeting -by-meeting basis, and it would revert at each meeting to the 
pending requests for permanent observer status to see if there were any changes in Members' 
positions.  
5. The Committee took note  of the Chairman's intervention.  WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 3 - 
 
  (I) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers  
6. The Chairman  recalled that, at previous sessions of the CTD, Members had agreed to invite a 
number of intergovernmental organizations on an ad hoc  meeting -by-meeting basis. These were the  
Arab Maghreb Union, the Economic Community of Central African States, the Economic Community 
of West African States, the Economic Cooperation Organization , the Inter -Arab Investment 
Guarantee Corporation, the Islamic Development Bank, the African Union, t he Organization  of the 
Islamic Conference, the South Centre, the Pacific Islands Forum, the United Nations Environment 
Programme, the West African Economic and Monetary Union, and the World Intellectual Property 
Organization.  These organizations had been i nvited to the present meeting. He proposed that the 
same organizations be invited to the next formal meeting of the CTD.  
7. It was so agreed . 
 (II) Further consideration of requests for observer status by the Le ague of Arab States, the 
Organis ation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Gulf Organization for Industrial 
Consulting, the Organi sation Internationale de la Francophonie , the Common Fund for 
Commodities, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) and the 
Groupe de la Banque Africaine de Développement  
8. The Chairman  said that the positions of delegations had been previously expressed . He 
indicated that, if there were no changes in positions to extend observer status to any of the 
applicants, the Committee would take note and revert to the requests at the next meeting.  
9. It was so agreed . 
C. REPORT OF THE 5 2ND SESSION OF THE JOINT  ADVISORY GROUP ON T HE 
INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTRE UNCTAD/WTO ( ITC/AG(VII )/272 ) 
10. The Chairman  said that the report of the 52nd Session of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) on 
the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO (ITC) , held on 10 July 2018,  was con tained in ITC 
document ITC/AG(VII )/272. He welcomed Ambassador Alvaro Cedeño Molinari of Costa Rica, the 
Chairman of the 52nd Session of the JAG, and Ms. Zeynep Ozgen, Senior Donor Relations and 
Governance Office r at the ITC . He invited the Chairman of the JAG to introduce the report.  
11. The Chairman of the JAG  provided an overview of the discussions that had taken place at the 
JAG meeting. He noted , inter alia , that the ITC 's role within the Geneva trade hub was recognized 
by both the WTO Director -General and the Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on 
Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The ITC's Annual Report for 2017, w hich was presented to the 
JAG, demonstrated that the organization  continued to deliver on its targets. The key results included  
the generation of US$650 million of additional exports and investments – amounting to US$14 of 
exports and investments for each dollar invested in ITC; the fact that 86% of country -specific 
interventions were delivered in least developed countries (LDCs), Sub -Saharan Africa, landlocked 
developing countries, small island developing states, small and vulnerable economies  (SVEs) , and 
post-conflict and fragile states; and the fact that the organization had reached its target of 
connecting 1 million women  entrepreneurs to international markets three years ahead of schedule , 
thereby leading to a new objective of connecting 3 million  women by 2021. At the meeting, t he 
Executive Director of the ITC had framed the ITC's work as tangible proof of the value of 
multilateralism and solidarity on trade, rendering it more tangible, transparent and inclusive. It was 
explained  that the ITC tran sformed funders' contributions into market -based opportunities for micro, 
small and medium -sized enterprises (MSMEs) , and for people at the base of the pyramid . The 
Executive Director had addition ally explained how the I TC was accelerating forward  – with 
$100 million in new extra -budgetary funding commitments, and through  the growing size and longer 
duration of the ITC's projects , thereby  allowing for improved and sustainable results on the ground. 
With its multiple partners, the organization  was expanding its work on new market intelligence tools, 
women’s economic empowerment, youth entrepreneurship, reinforcing South -South links for trade 
and investment, and continuously fostering innovation.   
12. He continued by noting that the JAG meeting had placed a spotlight on youth entrepreneurship 
for private sector development, growth and job creation. In that regard, he briefly outlined the 
content of presentations that were made by two entrepreneurs based in Libya and Ghana.  He then WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 4 - 
 
  went on to say that delegations at the JAG meeting had expressed appreciation for the ITC 's 
continued emphasis on promoting inclusive and sustainable trade and economic growth, and had 
recogniz ed how this contributed to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal s (SDGs ). 
Support was expressed for key areas of the ITC's work, including trade facilitation, addressing  non-
tariff measures  (NTMs ), strengthening  trade and investment support institutions , and integrating 
MSMEs into global value chains. There was additionally  a recognition of the ITC 's effective advocacy 
and thought leadership on women’s economic empowerment , through the SheTrades initiative and 
the piloting of the Buenos  Aires Declaration on Women and Trade. Many delegations called for a 
further s caling up of the SheTrades initiative, and there was also a call for the ITC to explore the 
development of a SheTrades certification to incentivize and reward good practice. Delegat ions 
welcomed the ITC's focus on its priority countries , and encouraged the  organization to continue 
placing importance on bolstering youth entrepreneurship , particularly in fragile contexts. With regard 
to small and medium -sized enterprises (SMEs), the 2017 SME Competitiveness Outlook's focus on 
regional trade was considered tim ely and useful. The ITC's analytical work  was seen as having 
positioned the organization  as a thought leader for policymakers in developed and developing 
countries.  Support was also expressed for a number of other initiatives , including the SME Trade 
Helpdesk, the Export Potential Map and e -Ping. The JAG was additionally  presented with the 2018 
Annual Evaluation Synthesis Report , the recommendations of which were supported by delegations. 
Areas for improvement included  sustaina bility, impact  and objective setting. Delegations 
recommended the collection of better data, and called for a continued focus on improving results, 
impact and cost -effectiveness, while ensuring scale. With regard to funding, the increase in financial 
commi tments  was noted, as was the ITC's efforts to diversify its funding base. The ITC's funders 
were called upon to ensure continued and increased un -earmarked funding. Delegat ions had 
expressed their willingness to strengthen their cooperation with  the ITC, and had encouraged the 
organization to be fully involved in the reform of the United Nations  (UN) Development System.   
13. The representative of Guatemala  noted that a part of the ITC's funding came  from the UN, 
where budget cuts were being made . She called on  the beneficiaries of the ITC's work to support 
the organization during the budgetary discussions that would take place  soon at the UN , so as to 
ensure that the ITC was given the funding it needed.  
14. The representative of Nigeria  expressed appreciation for the ITC's work, and urged funders to 
continue to support the organization . He emphasized the crucial role of the ITC in the context of the 
Geneva trade hub , and welcomed the attention the ITC was giving to priority countries such as LDCs, 
SVEs, and post -conflict and fragile states . Appreciation was also expressed for the SheTrade s 
initiative , as well as for the ITC's efforts in assisting countries to implement the WTO's Trade 
Facilitation Agreement. His delegation looked forward to a continued partnership with the ITC.  
15. The representative of the United States  expressed her delegation's support for the ITC 's efforts  
to help improve the competitiveness of SMEs in developing countries, and its work to help SMEs 
access world market s for trade and investment. Research by the United States International Trade 
Commission  showed that SMEs that engage d in international trade grew faster,  added  jobs faster , 
and pa id higher wages than SMEs that served only domestic markets.  
16. The representative of the European Union  appreciated her delegation's partnership with the 
ITC, and congratulated the organization for its performance. She noted the increasing focus on 
assistance to LDCs,  as well as the  continued work on women 's economic empowerment and market 
intelligence tools  for MSMEs.  
17. The representative of Australia  said that his delegation followed closely  and supported the 
work being carried out by the ITC and its partners.  
18.  The representative of Colombia  expressed her delegation's support for the work of the ITC, 
and also  indicated support for the intervention by Guatemala on the importance of sustaining the 
funding for ITC activities.  
19. The representative of the Republic of Moldova  appreciated the usefulness of the ITC's work, 
and highlighted in particular the  organization's  analytical work, including in the context of the SME 
Competitiveness Outlook.  WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 5 - 
 
  20. The representative of the ITC thanked both funders and beneficiary  countries for their support 
and collaboration.  The ITC looked forward to further collaboration  in 2019 and beyond.       
21.  The Committee took note  of the report of the 5 2nd Session of the JAG and forwarded it to the 
General Council for adoption.   
D. TRADE AND DEVELOPMEN T – WORK IN THE COMM ITTEE ON THE BASIS O F THE 
CHAIRMAN'S CONCLUDIN G STATEMENT FROM THE EIGHTH MINISTERI AL 
CONFERENCE (WT/MIN(1 1)/11)  
22. The Chairman  said that, at the Eighth WTO Ministerial Conference (MC8), Ministers had 
reaffirmed the positive link between trade and development and called for focused work in the CTD. 
Ministers had called on Members to fully operationalize the mandate of the CTD as a focal point for 
development work. Before turning to the two submissions for consideration at the present meeting, 
he indicated that he wished to say a few words about the updated Secretariat do cument on the 
implementation of special and differential treatment ( S&D) provisions in the WTO Agreements and 
Decisions, which had been circulated on 12 October 2018 in document WT/COMTD/W/239. As he 
had explained  at the last meeting, this document ha d been prepared on the basis of the proposal 
from Ecuador, contained in document WT/COMTD/W/204/Rev.1 , that the Committee had agreed to 
at its 97th Session in November 2015. According to the proposal, the purpose of the Secretariat 
report was to serve as a refe rence document for Members, for use as they deemed necessary. In 
addition, it was stated in the proposal that, should a Member propose that any particular element in 
the report be used as the basis for the inclusion of an agenda item at a meeting of the CT D, that 
Member would need to explain, in its request, the scope and purpose of the proposed discussion. In 
this light, he  invited any Member wish ing to discuss any particular element of the report in the 
Committee  to submit a w ritten request along the lines agreed to, so that an appropriate agenda 
item could  be included in a future CTD meeting.  
- Committee on Trade and Development Mandate: Focal Point for Consideration and 
Coordination of Work on Development in the WTO – Proposal from Barbados , Belize, 
China, Cuba, Ecuador, India, and the African Group (WT/COMTD/W/208)   
- Operationalization of the CTD's Mandate: a Proposal to Deliver Outcomes based on the 
MC8 Mandate – Proposal from China, Cuba, Ecuador, India and the African Group 
(WT/COMTD/W/ 192)1 
23. The Chairman  said that the first submission reflected under this agenda item – by Barbados, 
Belize, China, Cuba, Ecuador, India and the African Grou p, and circulated in  document 
WT/COMTD/W/208 – contained a proposal for the CTD to report on the devel opment -related work 
taking place in other WTO bodies. The second submission – by China, Cuba, Ecuador, India and the 
African Group , and circulated in document WT/COMTD/W/192  – contained  three proposals . One of 
the proposals was for the CTD  to make a recommendation for parties to regional trade agreements 
(RTAs) to submit their notification and information requirements jointly . A second proposal was for 
the CTD to report on development -related activities raised in other WTO bodies , and a thi rd was for 
the Secretariat to continue to update the report on the implementation of S&D provisions in the WTO 
Agreements and Decisions . He inform ed the Committee that, on 19 October 2018, he had held an 
informal consultation with the proponents of documen ts WT/COMTD/W/208 and WT/COMTD/W/192. 
At the consultation, the proponents had indicated that they wished to continue to pursue these 
proposals in the Committee. He had encouraged them to engage proactively with other Members, 
so that some progress could be  made. He invited  the Committee to take the two sub -items together.  
24. The representative of Ecuador  welcomed the updated Secretariat report  on the 
implementation of S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements and Decisions. She requested that  the 
Secretariat present the report at the n ext meeting, after which Members could have a discuss ion on 
the basis of the report . A written request would be sent by h er delegation for the inclusion of a 
pertinent  item on the agenda of the next meeting.  
25. The representative of India said that his intervention related to both documents 
WT/COMTD/W/208 and WT/COMTD/W/192 . He noted that these documents , when taken together , 
                                                
1 The discussion concerning documents WT/COMTD/W/208 and WT/COMTD/W/192 is presented together 
in this Note, as the Chairman invited the Committee to take the two sub -items together .  WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 6 - 
 
  contained three proposals . The first proposal , which was for the Secretariat to continue to update 
its report on the implementation of S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements and Decisions, was 
agreed to at the 87th Session. Accordingly, t he Secretariat had prepared  an update in June 2013, 
and subsequent update s were prepared  in 2016 and 2018. The p roponents expected that the 
Secretariat would continue to update  this document in the future.  Turning to the second proposal, 
which was for the CTD to report on the development -related work taking place in other WTO b odies,  
he said that the proposal was  in line  with the terms of reference  (TORs)  of the CTD , as well as with 
the MC8 mandate. In 1996, prior to MC8, the CTD had agreed  to review the implementation of 
provisions in favo ur of developing countries on the basis  of contributions from  Members, and from 
the WTO bodies responsible for monitoring the implementation of Uruguay Round commitments. To 
assist in this exercise, the Chairman had invited the Chairperson s of other WTO bodies to submit 
information on how provisions in favor of developing countries had been dealt with in their respective 
Committees. On the basis of these responses, the Secretariat had prepared background 
documentation, presenting the replies  received in an analytical format. He went on to say that t he 
proponents urged the Committee to restart that practice, and act as a focal point for development 
work. As for the third proposal  – which  was for the CTD to make a recommendation for parties to 
RTAs to submit their notification and information requirements jointly – he said that this would help 
ensure a timely consideration of RTAs , and the full realization of the responsi bilities assigned to the 
CTD. 
26. The representative of the United States  believed that six years were sufficient for the  proposals 
to have been fully considered by other Members. The proponents themselves had failed to take any 
initiative to advance their ideas for several years. They needed to address the concerns raised by 
other M embers – by either revising their proposals, or by dropping the proposals altogether. Either 
way, the sub -items concerning these proposals needed to be removed from the CTD's agenda until 
the proponents had something new to say. Her delegation had repeated ly stated that there was no 
consensus for these items to remain on the agenda as standing items, as if there was unfinished 
business to address. She also pointed out that, at several meetings, the Chairman had had to actively 
solicit acknowledgment of the item from the proponents. While the proponents were free to add 
these items to the agenda of a future meeting, the United States did not agree to these as standing 
items. Her delegation saw no basis from the CTD 's rules of procedure that would justify these items 
remain ing on the agenda  without required action by the proponents. With respect specifically to the 
proposal for the CTD to make a recommendation for parties to RTAs to submit their notification and 
information requirements jointly, the United States had repeatedly stated that the proposal 
suggested a diminishing of Members' substantive rights and obligations under the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and 
the Enabling Clause. Her d elegation saw no prospect for consensus in either the CTD or the 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA). The only outcome from the proposal would be to 
provide one Member with the right to prevent others from complying with their notification 
obliga tions, which would be prejudicial in the face of any dispute settlement proceedings regarding 
a particular RTA. The proponents had failed to make their case.  
27. The representative of South Africa  recalled that paragraph 1 of the CTD's TORs , contained in 
docum ent WT/L/46 , stated  that the Committee  should serve as a focal point for consideration and 
coordination of work on development in the WTO . The proposals in documents WT/COMTD/W/192 
and WT/COMTD/W/208 proposed  ways to operationalize the CTD's man date in thr ee areas . Her 
delegation wished to address two of these areas. She went on to highligh t the link between 
paragraph 3 of the TORs , and the proposal in document WT/COMTD/W/192 for the Secretariat to 
continue to update its paper on the implementation of S&D  provisions in the WTO Agreements and 
Decisions. In this regard, she welcomed t he updated Secretariat report , and s upport ed the request  
by Ecuador that the Secretariat present the report at the next meeting. She then turned to  the 
proposal for the CTD to r eport on the development -related work of other WTO bodies , which she 
indicated was contained in document WT/COMTD/W/192, and was supplemented by the proposal in 
document WT/COMTD/W/208. As per the proposal, she believed that the CTD needed to send a 
recomm endation to the General Council  to amend document WT/L/105 on the p rocedures for an 
annual overview of WTO activities and for reporting under the WTO . Finally, she requested that the 
items concerning these proposals  be maintained on the CTD's agenda for the next meeting , and 
indicated her delegation's  willingness to participate in any informal consultations to further discuss 
these issues.  
28. The representative of Nigeria  expressed support for the intervention by South Africa. He 
believed that t he mandated role of the CTD as a focal point for consideration and coordination of WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 7 - 
 
  work on development in the WTO  was consistent with the MC8 guidelines. He also indicated that the 
procedural and substantive issues raised needed to be addressed on the basi s of their respective 
merits. In closing, he expressed the wish of his delegation to participate in  any informal consultations 
on this matter, and call ed on Members to be open-minded  in considering the issues. He indicated 
that the items concerning documen ts WT/COMTD/W/208 and WT/COMTD/W/192 should remain  on 
the agenda .  
29. The representative of Barbados  expressed support for the proposal contained in document 
WT/COMTD/W/208 , as well as for the interventions by India, South Africa and Nigeria. He said that 
the efficient functioning of the CTD was vital for the development interests of SVEs like Barbados,  
as well as  for the broader sphere of developing countries at the WTO. The proposal in d ocument 
WT/COMTD/W/208 aimed to streamline and centralize the reporting procedures on 
development -related activities, and provide the C TD with the ability to enrich the recommendations  
it made to the General Council  on development -related activities . It would also allow the Committee  
to function efficiently and adequately in f ulfilling its mandate as a focal point for development. If the 
Committee was unable to agree to the proposal at the present meeting, his delegation wished for  
the item be maintained on the agenda  for the next meeting . 
30. The representative of the European Uni on said that her delegation's understanding of the MC8 
mandate was that the CTD should  further explore the positive link between trade and development. 
This needed to be based on constructive exchanges on clearly identified topics, in line with the 
instruc tion from MC8 to carry out focused work. The proposals submitted in the context of the MC8 
mandate that had previously been agreed to by the Committee  responded to the requirement of 
being focused. However, the E uropean Union considered that the remaining proposals contained in  
document WT/COMTD/W/192 , supplemented by the proposal  in document WT/COMTD/W/208 , did 
not respond to the requirements set out in the MC8 mandate. Furthermore, she was not aware of 
any recent effort s by the proponents to undertake consultations with other Members . Concerning  
specifically the proposal for the CTD to report on the development work of other WTO bodies, her 
delegation was of the view that this would  give the CTD an oversight function for all aspects of the 
WTO's work.  It went against the mandate to act as a focal point on development issues and carry 
out focused work. The objective was not to revisit the CTD's mandate, but to operationaliz e it. 
Turning to the proposal for the CTD to make a rec ommendation for parties to RTAs to submit their 
notification and information requirements jointly, she indicated that this should be part of the wider 
discussion on the implementation of paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Declaration . Some discussions in 
this reg ard had taken place in the CRTA, and t he European Union stood ready to continue 
constructive discussions with a view to clarifying issue s relating to  notification s. 
31. The representative of China  supported the interventions by other proponents, and requested 
that the item s concerning documents WT/COMTD/W/208 and WT/COMTD/W/192 be maintained on 
the agenda. He thanked the Chairman for his informal consultations with the proponents, and 
expressed his delegation's willingness to participate in  any future informal consultations. He also 
welcomed the updated Secretariat report  on the implementation of S&D provisions in the WTO 
Agreements and Decisions, which he believed provide d Members with a good basis to review and 
evaluate S&D provisions. In this regard, he suppo rted the request by Ecuador for the Secretariat to 
present th e report at the next meeting.  
32. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  expressed his delegation's support for 
the proposals contained in documents WT/COMTD/W/208 and WT/COMTD /W/192.  
33. The Chairman  encouraged further engagement among Members in order to try and make 
progress on these proposals. He believed that there was an interest to discuss the issues, although 
it was up to the proponents to present their case.  He indicated his willingness  to facilitate informal  
discussion s, if delegations  so wished . 
34. The Committee took note  of all interventions . WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 8 - 
 
  E. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  
- Implementation of the Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements – 
Status Report on the Committee's Work  
35. The Chairman  said that  he wished to take the opportunity to touch upon the issue of document 
symbols for notifications of RTAs to the CTD. He recalled that, at the 105th Session in April 2018, his 
predecessor in the Chair had made some points on this matter under the present agenda item. In 
particular, his predecessor had addressed a number of concerns raised at an earlier meeting – the 
104th Session held in November 2017 – regarding the implementation of the Transparency 
Mechanism for RTAs ( RTA TM ) in the CTD . On the issue of notification symbols, his predecessor had 
correctly observed that, while CRTA document symbols allowed a tracking of all subsequent 
documentation relating to an RTA from the time of notification, this was not the case in the CTD. In 
fact, RTA notifications in the CTD were circulated according to the document series which had been 
applied since 1995. A unique number was assigned for subsequent documentation relating to a 
notified RTA – for example, a fac tual presentation, or a questions and replies document – and there 
was therefore no link between an RTA notification symbol, and the symbol for any subsequent 
documentation relating to that RTA. As this was raised as a concern, his predecessor had looked i nto 
the matter, and after discussions with the Secretariat, had informed the Committee that it would be 
possible for a unique number to be henceforth reflected on the notification document itself.  The 
Chairman went on to say that, i n his view, this would a llow the CTD to have a document structure 
for RTAs very similar to the CRTA document structure.  He observed that n o objections had been  
expressed by Members when his predecessor had made these points at the 105th Session , and in 
addition no objections were expressed  when these concerns were first raised at the 104th Session . 
While it therefore appeared that delegations  were agreeable to moving forward with th e new 
structure for RTA notifications and subsequent documents , he explained  that he was raising thi s 
issue at the present meeting in order  to ensure that all Members were clear on the matter, and so 
that the Secretariat would have guidance on how to circulate RTA notifications going forward. He 
inquired whether any Member wished to take the floor .   
36. No Member took the floor.  
(I) Notifications received pursuant to Enabling Clause (Paragraph 4(a))   
37. The Chairman  said that he wished to inform the Committee that, in the context of the Latin 
American Integration Association (LAIA) , a communication was received from the Per manent Mission 
of Uruguay on 1  November 2018. According to the cover letter, the communication referred to the 
instruments concluded under the Enabling Clause during the period 1980 to 2016, sent by the LAIA 
General Secretariat. He ha d had the opportunity to take a brief look at the communication, which 
contained several notifications of individual agreements of the LAIA members. An initial count 
suggested 223 individual notifications . It appeared that these had been submitted as notif ications 
of changes to the 1980 Treaty of Mon tevideo  (TM80) . Furthermore, on 20  November 2018, another 
communication had been received from the delegation of Uruguay. According to the cover letter, 
this second communication, also sent by the LAIA Secretari at, referred to instruments concluded by 
the LAIA member countries in the framework of the TM80 , and under the Enabling Clause, during 
the period 1 January 2017 to December 2017. An initial count suggested 35 individual notifications , 
which also appeared t o have been submitted as notifications of changes to the TM80 . He said that 
he would be looking over these notifications  with the WTO Secretariat , and would be in touch with 
the notifying Members for any clarification that was required. The notifications w ould be circulated 
as soon as possible.  
38. The representative of Uruguay  indicated  that, on 1 November 2018 , a number of notifications 
under the Enabling Clause had been submitted, concerning instruments concluded under the TM80  
between 1980 and 2016 . On 20  November 2018, additional information concerning this submission  
had been provided , and the instruments  concluded under the TM80 during the period 1  January  2017 
to December 2017  had also been submitted . 
39. The Chairman  said that he would be looking through the documents with the Secretariat, 
including those received most recently.  WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 9 - 
 
  -  Notification of Regional Trade Agreement – Submitted by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, 
Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay (WT/COMTD/N/53)  – Request from the 
United  States  
40. The Chairman  said that the notification by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and 
Uruguay – contained in document WT/COMTD/N/53 – appeared once again on the agenda , at the 
request of the United States . 
41.  The representative of the United States  said that his delegation had retained  this sub-item 
for the purpose of continuing discussion s on th e notification. He also observed that, since the last 
meeting, a communication had been received from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and 
Uruguay, containing replies to the questions from the United States on the notification. He indicated 
that he would make his comments  when these replies were considered .  
42. The Committee took note  of the interve ntions.  
(II) Communication from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay in reply to 
the document WT/COMTD/W/232 (WT/COMTD/W/238)  
43. The Chairman  invited the delegations that had made the submission to take the floor.  
44. The representative of Argentina  said that the communication from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, 
Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay contained responses to the questions raised by the United States on 
the notification circulated  in document WT/COMTD/N/53. He expressed appreciation to the 
United States for its interest in issues relating to LAIA, and indicated the commitment of his 
delegation to transparency in notifications . He also indicated his support  for the earlier intervention 
by Uruguay . 
45. The representative of the United States  thanked  the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, 
Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay for their responses to the written questions  from the United States , 
and for their continued engagement in effort s to clarify his delegation's understanding of the network 
of LAIA a greements and their relationship to WTO rules and obligations. As his delegation  had 
mentioned previously, many of the issues discussed in the CTD were also relevant for the CRTA. The 
implementation of the RTA TM was spread across two Committees, and Membe rs had to  remain 
mindful that their interpretations , and the implementation of the RTA TM , needed to  be consistent 
across the two bodies.  
46. He drew Members' attention to the response provided to question 1.1 in document 
WT/COMTD/W/238 , which he believed had  significant systemic relevan ce for the Committee . The 
question from the United States had sought to clarif y what instrument , or instruments , were 
intended to be notified in document WT/COMTD/N/53. In their response, the submitting Members 
had clarified th at their intent was to notify a modification to an existing RTA. These Members also 
asserted that the initial notification of the TM80  covered the last 38 years' worth of separate legal 
instruments negotiated and concluded among the LAIA members  – even those that were not  party 
to the original TM80 . The response articulated three separate categories of agreements between the 
parties. It firstly made reference to the TM80 , and clearly set out that the Treaty itself only included 
provisions that described how  future bilateral and regional agreements might be carried out, and 
not the actual terms or conditions of those agreements. Th e response also referenced what LAIA 
called "Partial Scope Agreements ", which were subse quently negotiated between bilateral and 
regional partners. It was in these so -called Partial Scope Agreements that the terms and conditions 
of preferential tariff treatment were set out and put into effect. Third, the response referenced 
modifications mad e in 2016 to the Partial Scope Agreements. The response concluded with the 
assertion that the only agreement subject to notification as an RTA was the TM80 , and that both the  
Partial Scope Agreements and the subsequent changes to those agreements should  all be considered 
modifications to the TM80 .   
47. He went on to say that his delegation had noted on many previous occasions that the TM80 
did not itself establish any specific tariff preferences for any specific good. Accordingly, the existence 
of this politic al framework did not absolve LAIA members of notifying the agreements concluded 
pursuant to the TM80  which establish ed the specific preferential tariff treatment that LAIA members 
provided to each other. He indicated that he wished to illustrate  this point  by referring to the WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 10 - 
 
  notification of the agreement AAP.CE.2.77 between Brazil and Uruguay, as contained in document 
WT/COMTD/N/53. The TM80 did not provide for any specific tariff treatment for any goods traded 
between Brazil and Uruguay, and there were no  annexes or schedules associated with the Treaty 
that provided for tariff reduction or elimination between these two parties. However, the agreement 
signed between Brazil and Uruguay,  referred to as  AAP.CE.2 , set out the initial establishment of 
preferenti al tariff treatment in detailed annexes , providing for tariff reductions between the two 
parties. This agreement was then modified a further 77 times. The parties to this agreement asserted 
in document WT/COMTD/W/238 that they had fulfilled their transpare ncy obligations to other WTO 
Members by notifying a purely political statement on the front end, and a minor modification to 
existing tariff treatment 35 years later , on the back end. In this light, his delegation wished to once 
again assert that the Parti al Scope Agreement s triggered the notification and transparency called for 
under GATT Article XXIV , the Enabling Clause and the RTA TM. The se agreements needed to be 
properly notified – individually  and clearly  – and be subject ed to the transparency review called for 
under the RTA TM. The United States could not accept the premise that these agreements be 
considered subsequent modifications to an existing agreement , when LAIA claimed that the 
underlying agreement was the TM80 . In addition, regardless of the political framework under which 
these Partial Scope Agreements were conceived of and negotiated, it was the actual substance of 
those agreements  – and the preferential access that they established between the parties  – that 
resulted in the WTO notification and transparency obligations.  
48. His delegation believed that several LAIA members also shared this view. In fact, some LAIA 
members had previously submitted notifications of Partial Scope Agreements . These included  
notifications under GATT Article XXIV of agreements ACE 33 between Colombia and Mexico, ACE 38 
between Chile and Peru, ACE 41 between Chile and Mexico, ACE 60 between Mexico and Uruguay, 
and ACE 67 between Mexico and Peru, as well the MERCOSUR notification of ACE 18 in the GATT "L" 
series. He noted  that transparency for changes or modifications to existing agreements was 
consistent with the provisions set out in the RTA TM , which was drafted and agreed to by Members , 
with the understanding that there was a logical sequen ce to follow. In particular, the initial terms of 
preferential access in RTAs were to be notified pursuant to the provisions set out in GATT 
Article  XXIV, GATS Article V and the Enabling Clause, and were to be  reviewed under the terms of 
paragraphs 3 to 13 of the RTA TM . The procedures set out in paragraph 14 were only then to be 
followed to ensure that all Members were notified of changes affecting the implementation of each 
agreement. In the case of document WT/COMTD/N/53 , however,  reference s were made  to changes 
to agreements that had themselves never been notified . Although the transparency on the 
modifications was appreciated, it did not negate Member’s responsibilities with respect to the 
underlying agreem ents. 
49. In order  to further facilitate Members ' understanding of the wide range of preferential 
agreements that existed among LAIA Members, but had not been notified or reviewed by any WTO 
Committee, his delegation  requested that LAIA members engage construc tively in the CTD to provide 
clarity to other Members on their regional integration efforts. A first step would be to provide 
responses to the questions submitted by the European Union in the CRTA in document 
WT/REG/W/124. Finally, he said that, while his delegation had not yet seen the new notifications by 
LAIA members that the Chairman had referred to earlier, he had taken  note that these notifications 
had been submitted as modifications to the TM80 . The point s made by his delegation therefore 
applied to the new notifications as well. He believed that it would be important for Members to 
consider  what constitute d an agreement  and what constituted a modification, and the kind of 
transparency that was required.  
50. The representative of the European Union  appreciated t he continued engagement of LAIA 
members on this issue, and in particular their effort s in replying to the questions  from the 
United  States . She noted that the se questions touched on key systemic issues that had also been 
raised in the E uropean  Union's questions submitted in the CRTA in document WT/REG/W/124. She 
agreed with the United States that the TM80  was only a political agreement, which did not contain 
any trade preferences. The subsequent LAIA agreements , which  provide d the actual  tariff 
preferences , therefore  needed to be notified individually.  The European Union's questions aimed to 
identify the underlying LAIA agreements  which were subject to notification , and also sought to 
identify those L AIA agreements that had some  services  element s. She explained that the services 
elements were not covered by the Enabling Clause , and needed to be notified under GATS Article V. 
Her delegation believed that further conversa tions were needed among Members  to clarify 
paragraphs 14 to 17  of the RTA TM, and to determine what kind of transparency process was required 
for RTAs undergoing modifications. She indicated  that a number of substantial RTAs were in the WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 11 - 
 
  pipeline to potentially f all in this category . In closing, she encouraged the LAIA members to rep ly 
expeditiously to the European Union's questions , which she noted had been submitted in 
October  2017. She also observed that, since t he venue for discussi on represented a concern  for LAIA 
members , her delegation was open to discuss these issues in the CT D, although  not exclusively  in 
the CTD . Her delegation could also envisage an ad-hoc dedicated session  on this matter . Finally , the 
European Union had taken  note of the new set of notifications submitted by LAIA  members, and 
stood ready to engage on discussions on these notifications.  
51.  The Chairman  indicated once again that he and the Secretariat would be looking over the 
recent notifications by LAIA members . The notifications would be on the agenda for the next 
meeting.  
52.  The Committee took note  of all interventions.  
(III) Status of the preparation of factual presentations - Report by the Chairman 
(WT/COMTD/W/ 240)   
53. The Chairman  said that his report on the status of the preparation of factual presentations  
was circulated in document WT/COMTD/W/240. It contained the same information as the report 
considered earlier in the day at the CTD's 9th Dedicated Session o n RTAs . This was because the CTD 
Chairperson traditionally provided the same information on the status  of preparation of factual 
presentations at the CTD Regular Session and at the Dedicated Session on RTAs . The report  
contained  16 separate entries relating to the status of preparation of factual presentations. In some 
cases, the Secretariat was still awai ting the submission of the full set of data, while in other  cases , 
all comments on the draft factual presentations had not been received. He urged all the parties to 
these agreements to provide the data and infor mation as soon as possible. H e expressed his  
intention to continue to hold consultations with the parties to these RTAs, in the hope that this would 
help expedite the provision of the required data and information. Finally, he said that there remained 
one RTA notified under the Enabling Clause that had not been ratified by all the parties. This was 
the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement  (PICTA ). Following CRTA procedures, a factual 
presentation on PICTA would only be drafted after the agreement had been ratified by all the parties. 
The parties to PICTA were urged to inform the Secretariat as soon as all ratifications were complete d. 
54. The Committee took note  of the Chairman's report.   
- Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Notification of Customs Union  – Communication from 
China, Egypt and India (WT/ COMTD/W/175)  
55. The Chairman  said that th is sub -item concerned the GCC Customs Union notification. The 
sub-item also referred to the communication from China, Egypt and India,  which was circulated in 
document WT/COMTD/W/175 . The sub -item was requested by Indi a, on behalf of the proponents of 
the document.  
56. The representative of India indicated that his intervention related to document 
WT/COMTD/W/175 , as well as  to issues relating to the notification of the C omprehensive Economic 
Partnership Agreement between In dia and Korea. He said that document WT/COMTD/W/175 raised 
systemic concerns relating to  the legal and procedural implications of the dual notification of the 
GCC Customs Union  under both the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV . These concerns also 
applied to some other RTAs. The concerns impinged upon the mandate and the TORs of the CTD, as 
well as on the Enabling Clause, the RTA TM, and the rights and obligations of Members in a manner 
that extended to the realm of strengtheni ng the multilateral trading system and its development 
dimension , as highlighted by the Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference. In this context, some 
Members had expressed the view that the systemic concerns raised in document WT/COMTD/W/175 
were outside the s cope of the CTD, and needed to be discussed in the Negotiating Group on Rules. 
In India's view, the CTD was the appropriate forum to consider question s arising from RTAs with a 
dual notification. In doing so, the CTD could consult with other WTO bodies, as  per paragraph 3 of 
its TORs. Some of the issues to address included whether a Member could notify an RTA under a 
specific legal provision unilaterally – without the consent of the other parties to the RTA – and 
whether a notification could be made on beha lf of all the parties to the RTA under another legal 
provision. The CTD also needed to discuss and address the implications arising from Members WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 12 - 
 
  retaining a notification under the Enabling Clause , but not conducting a factual consideration of the 
RTA in the CTD . 
57. The representative of the United States  appreciated the opportunity to once again clarify the 
position of his delegation. In this regard, h e said that his delegation did not see the GCC issue as 
one of dual notification. A dual notification existed when individual parties to an RTA submitted 
notifications under different legal provisions. The India -Korea  agreement – which would be 
addressed under the next sub -item – fell into this category, as Korea had notified the agreement 
under GATT Artic le XXIV, while India had notified it under the Enabling Clause. He agree d that 
Members should discuss practical ways forward when  there were different views as to what the 
appropriate legal provision was. His delegation saw this as a question of venue, and  believed that 
there were several non -prejudicial options that could easily address Members' concerns . He 
encouraged Members to pursue these options.  However, t he case of the GCC Customs Union was  
very different. There was no question of dual notification , since the GCC parties had acted in unison.  
They had notified th e agreement under GATT Article XXIV in November 2006 , and had subsequently 
changed their view and submitted a notification  under the Enabling Clause  in 2008 . A discussion had 
taken place in the CTD  in 2008 , under "Other Business" , and the United States and the 
European  Union had submitted written questions regarding the appropriateness of notifying a 
customs union under the Enabling Clause. The GCC parties  had responded to these questions, and 
in November  2009 had returned to their original position by submitting a  notification of their customs 
union under  GATT Article XXIV. This was the most current notification , which was the basis on which 
Members should proceed.  He request ed the GCC parties  to break their long silence on this issue, 
and inform  the Committee whether the notification contained in document WT/REG276/N/1/Rev.1 
remained current . If the Committee was to have a discuss ion on  this issue, it should be on the basis 
of whether or not a customs union was consistent with the provisions of the Enabling Clause. 
Attempts to distract with confusion over the dual notification  issue would not help the Committee 
act as a focal point for the interpretation of the RTA TM, and would not help Members get past th e 
blockage. He hoped that in future meetings Members  could focus on the relevant que stions, and not 
get distracted.  
58. The rep resentative of China  supported the intervention by India and requested that the 
present sub -item be maintained on the agenda.  
59. The representative of Nigeria  believed that this was a systemic concern, on which some clarity 
was required . On the one hand, t he present situation with respect  to the GCC Customs Union could 
be viewed as one of dual notification . However , it could also be considered that the most recent 
notification had nullified the earlier one. Questions to discuss included how to reconcile this i n terms 
of procedure, and how to interpret the notifications. He also noted that whatever decision was taken  
on this issue would set a precedent for any possible future notifications of RTAs under different legal 
provisions . He encouraged the GCC parties t o participate in discussions, and indicated a need for 
further informal consultations to find a breakthrough . 
60. The representative of the European Union  thanked the United States for recalling the 
background of this issue . She said that the GCC Customs Unions differed from other dual 
notifications, and in  fact was not a dual notification. Her delegation's view was that GATT Article  XXIV 
was the appropriate legal basis for notifying customs unions. The European Union had therefore 
been encouraged to see t he circulation of the factual presentation on the GCC Customs Union, as 
well as the Secretariat's general incidence calculation , for review at the June 2018 meeting of the 
CRTA . However, the matter had subsequently been withdrawn  from that meeting . She ask ed for 
information from the GCC parties on when the transparency exercise could be taken forward . 
61. The Committee took note  of all interventions.   
- Notification of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between India and 
Korea (Goods)  
62. The Chairman  said that the sub-item concerning the notification of the Comprehensive 
Economic Partnership Agreement between India and Korea was requested by India . WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 13 - 
 
  63. The representative of Korea  indicated that his delegation's position remained the same as had 
been outlined in past CTD meetings. He also informed the Committee that discussions were under 
way between Korea and India to solve the problem.  
64. The representative of the United States  appreciated that this item remained on the agenda, 
as it allowed his dele gation to ex press its concern about the delay by one of the parties in providing 
data to the Secretariat. He requested that the Secretariat include the full title of the notification in 
question  – including  the date  – on any future agendas, so as to allow Members to see the time that 
had elapsed since the notification was submitted. He commended the efforts by Korea for its timely 
submission of data, and encouraged India to submit its data without further delay. Finally, he noted 
that some Members had raise d concerns regard ing the venue for the mandated review of the 
India-Korea agreement pursuant to the RTA TM, given that the parties had notified the agreement 
under separate legal instruments. While it was important for Members to reach a consensus on a 
path forward for th e review , his delegation did not believe that the question of venue should be a 
reason for Members to avoid fulfilling the ir obligations under the RTA TM.  
65. The representative of the European Union  said that it was important to clarify the  legal and 
procedural questions arising from an RTA being notified by each party under different legal 
provisions. With respect  specifically to the India -Korea agreement, she regretted that no progress  
had been made . The parties were invited to make additi onal effort s to find a solution.  
66. The representative of Nigeria  stressed the importance of clarifying  the relevant  legal and 
procedural questions. He also believed that it was important to determine how and where these 
issues could be addressed .     
67. The representative of Colombia  referred to the Chairman's earlier intervention concerning the 
proposed new document structure in the CTD for notifications of RTAs, and indicated  that she wished 
to know more about  the implications of these changes . She wond ered whether further information 
could be provided at the present meeting, or whether the matter could be addressed at a future 
meeting . 
68. The Chairman  replied that it would be preferable to come back to issues relating to the new 
document structure for notifications  at the next meeting, at which the Secretariat could provide 
further information . 
69. The Committee took note  of all interventions.   
F. TEMPLATE FOR NOTIFYI NG CHANGES TO AN EXI STING REGIONAL TRADE  AGREEMENT 
– PROPOSAL BY THE CO MMITTEE ON REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS TO TH E COUNCIL 
FOR TRADE IN GOODS, THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN SERVICES AND TH E COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND DEVELOP MENT (WT/REG/28)  
70. The Chairman  said that the present item concerned a template proposed by the CRTA for 
notifying changes to an existin g RTA , which could be found in the Annex of document WT/REG/28. 
He believed that , in the case of the CTD, this notification template would apply to RTAs originally 
notified under the Enabling Clause. He also recalled that , at the last meeting , Members had had a 
preliminary consideration of this template. The Committee had not been in a position to adopt the 
template , as the delegation of Brazil had indicated that it would need more time to complete internal 
consultations on the matter. He said that t he template was up for consideration once again at the 
present meeting, and asked whether the Committee was now in a position to adopt it. 
71. The representative of Brazil  recalled  that his delegation had requested more time to complete 
internal consultations on the matter . These consultations had now been concluded, and h is 
delegation was in a position to join the consensus and approve the template.      
72. The Committee adopted  the template. The Chairman indicated that i t would be circulated in a 
CTD document as a template agreed to by the Committee.2 
                                                
2 The template was circulated in document WT/COMTD/98.  WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 14 - 
 
  G. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE TRANSPARENCY MEC HANISM FOR PREFERENT IAL TRADE 
ARRANGEMENTS  
- Implementation of the Transparency Mechanism for Preferential Trade Arrangements  – 
Status  Report  on the Committee's Work  
- Status of the preparation of factual presentations – Report  by the Chairman 
(WT/COMTD/W/2 41)   
73. The Chairman  said that his report on the status of the preparation of factual presentations 
was circulated in document WT/COMTD/W/241.  In summarizing the information contained in the 
report, he informed the Committee that, as had been mentioned in past meetings, there were five 
PTAs that had been notified since the establishment of the Transparency Mechanism for PTAs (PTA 
TM) for which t he Secretariat had still not received the full set of data or information required for 
the preparation of the factual presentations. These were the PTAs being implemented by China, 
India, the Russian Federation, Chinese Taipei and Thailand. He added that , on 31 October 2018, he 
had held a series of informal consultations with several of the Members implementing the PTAs 
mentioned in the report, with a view to finding ways to expedite the provision of the required data 
and up -to-date information. He noted th at some progress had been made since the last meeting , 
and expressed his hope that his consultations would allow the Secretariat to soon receive all it 
needed for the preparation of the factual presentations. He also indicated that he wished to take the 
opportunity to remind Members implementing PTAs of their notification obligations with respect to 
changes in the implementation of the PTA. In particular, such changes  – including  any legal changes  
– needed  to be notified to the CTD.  
74. The representative of the United States  encouraged the concerned Members to provide the 
full set of data and information that would allow the Secretariat to complete the drafting of the 
outstanding factual presentations. She reiterated her delegation's con cern that , for some PTAs, the 
Secretariat had been waiting for more than six years for the information and data . The lack of 
transparency contributed to the decreasing relevance of the WTO to some stakeholders. She urged 
Members to participate in this exer cise. 
75. The Committee took note  of the Chairman's report , and of the interventions.  
H. ANNUAL REVIEW OF STEPS TAKEN TO PROV IDE DUTY -FREE AND QU OTA-FREE MARKET 
ACCESS TO LEAST DEVE LOPED COUNTRIES  
76. The Chairman  said that the Bali Decision on duty-free and quota-free (DFQF ) market access 
for LDCs, contained in documents WT/MIN(13)/44 and WT/L/919, instructed the CTD to continue to 
annually review the steps taken to provide DFQF market access to the LDCs, and report to the 
General Council for appropriate actio n. To aid in the review, the Secretariat was instructed to 
prepare, in close coordination with Members, a report on Members' DFQF market access for LDCs, 
at the tariff line level based on their notifications. He recalled that , in 2017, it had not been poss ible 
for the Secretariat to circulate a report on DFQF market access as mandated by the Bali Decision, 
due to divergent views expressed by some Members on the scope and coverage of the report. He  
informed the Committee that he had recently held informal co nsultations with the key delegations 
involved in this discussion in order to see  if positions had changed . However , he had found that this 
was not the case. Therefore, under these circumstances, it was once again not possible for the 
Secretariat to prepare  a report  in 2018 . While t he situation was regrettable , he observed that the 
Committee still had an item on the agenda concerning the annual DFQF review, so as to allow a 
discuss ion to take place on the matter.  
77. The representative of  the Central African Republic , on behalf of the LDC Group, emphasized 
the importance of DFQF market access for the economic growth  and development of LDCs. The 
Group continue d to encourage Members to improve as far as possible the DFQF market access 
conditions for products exported from LDCs. The Group also requested Members to provide LDCs  
with the appropriate technical assistance in order  to allow for a better utilization of the trade 
preferences  that were granted . 
78. The representative of the European Union  expressed her delega tion's commitment to the 
Hong Kong and Bali DFQF Decisions. She said that the European Union  had been a pioneer in WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 15 - 
 
  providing DFQF market access to LDCs , and it remained the most important destination for LDCs' 
agricultural and manufactured products. She al so observed that , as per the European Union's 2014  
GSP regulations, the number of beneficiaries of the scheme had been reduced, thereby generating 
considerably more space  for LDC exports. According to a recent report, increases had been recorded 
in both the absolute  figures and in the relative share s of LDC exports .  She welcomed the progress 
made in DFQF market access , and encouraged Members  – including  developing countries  in a 
position to do so  – to continue to support LDC exports . 
79. The representative o f the United States  appreciated  the effort s by the Chairman and his 
predecessor to try and  find a solution that was acceptable to all Members. She said that h er 
delegation  could continue to accept the compromise that it had accepted in previous reports , which 
was to include in a table the United States'  GSP programme, and supplement this with additional 
text in a footnote  in order to clarify the United States' preference schemes. Consideration could also 
be given to the possibility of deleting the acron ym GSP from the title of the table, and listing the 
three additional preferences  programmes – namely, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) , 
the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) , and the trade preferences for Nepal – in the 
body of the  table, given that all these programmes were notified to the WTO and appeared in the 
Database on PTAs. However, the United States could not join consensus to approve a report that did 
not provide specific information on all of its preference programmes tha t had LDC beneficiaries, as 
doing so would be misleading and unfair. Her delegation was disappoint ed that other Members 
sought to block this compromise.  
80. The representative of Nigeria  supported the intervention  by the Central African Republic. He 
noted  that Members were confronted with the issue of implementing the Hong Kong and Bali DFQF 
Decisions, and that the current state of affairs did not allow the Secretariat to finalize its report . He 
also noted that , in the absence of the report, the Committee was not in a position to make 
appropriate recommendations.  
81. The Committee took note of all interventions.  
I. WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  
82. The Chairman  said that, earlier in the  year, Members' attention had been drawn to the Decision 
taken at the Eleve nth WTO Ministerial Conference (MC11) concerning the WTO's Work Programme 
on E-Commerce which  called for a continuation of the work under the Work Program me. He recalled 
that the CTD was one of the subsidiary bodies of the General Council mandated to undertake work 
under the Work Programme. However, at the present time, there were no specific proposals from 
Members t o consider.  
83. The representative of Nigeria  said that his delegation did not have any specific proposals to 
make . However, he wished to recall that the CTD was one of the subsidiary bodies of the General 
Council mandated to undertake work under the Work Program me on Electronic Commerce.  In this 
regard, he ind icated his concern that there seemed to be no appetite for discussing e -commerce in 
the CTD . While he was aware of the consultations on e -commerce being held by the Chairman of 
the G eneral Council , as well as the meetings being organized in the context of the Joint Statement 
on E-Commerce, he believed that Members also needed to ensure that the CTD was fulfilling its 
mandate under the Work Programme on E -Commerce. He wondered how the CTD Chairman 
intended to handle this, and also  indicated his delegation's interest in discussing issues relating to 
e-commerce . 
84. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation  placed  a strong importance 
on digital trade, and in ensuring that  the digital economy realize d its promise as an engine of 
economic growth. Her delegation looked forward to continued engagement on digital trade issues in 
the CTD , as well as in other WTO bodies.  
85. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation continued to attach gr eat 
importance to progress ing the  work on e-commerce at the WTO. The European Union  stood ready 
to participate in, and contribute p ositively to , various approaches that  could allow Members to 
advance  in determining  multilateral trade policy responses to th e challenges faced by developed 
countries and developing countries in the e -commerce area.  WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 16 - 
 
  86. The Committee took note  of the interventions.  
87. The Chairman  proposed  that the agenda item concerning the Work Programme on 
E-Commerce be maintained on the agenda for the next  meeting.  
88. It was so agreed .  
J. DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018 (WT/COMTD/W /242)  
89. The Chairman  recalled that a fax was sent to Members on 12 November 2018, indicating that 
the CTD's draft annual report had been circulated in document WT/COMTD /W/242. It was noted that 
the draft contained a number of square brackets relating to the items to be discussed at the CTD 
meetings held on 21 November 2018 , which included the 9th Dedicated Session on RTAs, the  
10th Dedicated Session on the Monitoring Mec hanism on S&D, and the present  107th Regular Session . 
The square brackets would be removed as part of the process of adopting the report, and the 
discussion that had taken place at the  three  CTD meetings held on 21 November 2018 would be 
appropriately refl ected in the report. Noting that Members had been requested to submit in writing 
any comments on the draft annual report by 15 November 2018, he informed the Committee that 
comments had been received from the delegations  of El Salvador and the United State s. The 
suggestion by El Salvador related to the section on the Dedicated Session on Small Economies. Th e 
suggestion was to add a sentence  in paragraph 6.1  to indicat e that a number of SVEs took the floor 
at the meeting of the Dedicated Session on Small Eco nomies held on 1 November 2018. He believed 
that this was a reasonable suggestion, which could be accommodated. He also indicated that he had 
had the opportunity to see the comments by the United States, and inquired whether the 
representative of the United States wished to introduce them.  
90. The representative of the United States  said that the first comment from her delegation 
concerned  paragraph 7.1  of the draft annual report. She referred to the third sentence of that 
paragraph, which read: "After a n umber of informal consultations, the 2018 -2019 Aid for Trade Work 
Programme was endorsed by the General Council on 8 May with the theme "Supporting Economic 
Diversification and Empowerment for Inclusive, Sustainable Development through Aid for Trade" 
(WT/C OMTD/AFT/W/75).  She requested that the word "endorsed" in this paragraph be replaced by 
"noted", which was in line with the minutes of the General Council meeting. The second comment  
from her delegation related to paragraph 8.7 of the draft annual report . Drawing from the minutes 
of the 14 September 2018 meeting of the Sub-Committee on LDCs , she requested that the following 
sentence be added at the end of that paragraph : "Another Member commented on the accession 
process's important long -term contributions to sustainable development for Members at different 
stages of development, including for the LDCs, noting that countries joining the WTO became 
stronger and more resilient in view of the reforms they were undertaking as part of accession".   
91. The representative of Nigeria  said that the CTD's annual report needed to reflect the discussion 
that had taken place at the present meeting under  the item concerning the Work Programme on 
E-Commerce . 
92. The Chairman  asked w hether the representative of Nigeri a had a ny specific  text that  he wished 
to suggest for inclusion in the annual report . 
93. The representative of Nigeria  indicated  that, while  he had no specific text to suggest, he 
wished that it be reflected in the annual report that interest had been expressed at the present 
meeting on the issue of e-commerce.  
94. The Chairman  explained that the square brackets appeared in the draft report  because the 
discussion that had taken place at the present meeting, as well as at the two dedicated sessions of 
the CTD which were also held on 21 November 2018, would need to be reflected in the final report. 
This applied to the discussion on e -commerce as well. He observed that the normal practice was for 
the CTD to approve its repo rt at the final meeting of the year. However, in light of the comments 
made, he suggested  that these comments be included in a  proposed  final draft of the annual report. 
Members would be given a few days to review the final draft. This would ensure that al l Members 
were in agreement with the report before it was circulated and forwarded to the General Council.  WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 17 - 
 
  95. The representative of South Africa  indicated that she wished to make a comment , on which 
she stood to be guided. She referred to the last sentence of paragraph 2.11  of the draft annual 
report , which read: " The updated paper was prepared in the context of the proposal from Ecuador 
for the Secretariat to periodically update its paper on this subject (WT/COMTD/W/204/Rev.1), which 
the C ommittee agreed to at its 97th Session". She suggested  in this regard  that the updated report 
by the Secretariat responded not only to the proposal by Ecuador, but also to one of the proposals 
contained in  document WT/COMTD/W/192.   
96. The representative of Nigeria referred to sections 2.5, 2.7 and 3 of the draft report,  and asked 
whether the discussion that had taken place at the meeting s held on 21 November  would be reflected 
in the final report.  
97. The Chairman  replied that the draft report presented  a picture of discussions that  had taken 
place up to a certain time. The discussions that had taken place on 21 November would still need to 
be reflected in the final report. The comments by El Salvador and the United States, which he 
believed were reasona ble, would also need to be incorporated. He indicated  once again that a 
proposed final version of the draft the annual report would be prepared. Members would be given a 
few days to provide comments, if any , before the report was circulated and forwarded t o the General 
Council .  
98. It was so agreed .3  
99. The Chairman  said that he wished to make an observation regarding the reporting of the work 
of the Sub -Committee on LDCs. He noted that the Sub -Committee was established by the CTD  
through a decision taken on 5 July 1995, contained in document WT/COMTD/2 , which laid out the 
TORs for the Sub -Committee. While he appreciated that the Sub -Committee was currently 
implementing the WTO Work Programme for the LDCs as contained in document 
WT/COMTD/LDC/11/Rev.1, it nevertheless remained a fact that the Sub -Committee was a subsidiary 
body of the CTD. In terms of reporting structure, the decision taken by the CTD in 1995  indicated 
that the Sub-Committee was to report to the CTD for consideratio n and appropriate action. It 
appeared that the practice for many years in this regard had been for the Sub -Committee’s reporting 
to the CTD to take place through the CTD’s annual report to the General Council. In particular, the 
annual report – which was p ut together by the Secretariat and then adopted by the CTD – 
traditionally had a dedicated section devoted to the work of the Sub-Committee. While he did not 
believe that there was a need to change this practice, he was  nevertheless of  the view that the C TD 
– and the CTD Chair as well – could additionally benefit from a periodic briefing from the Chair of 
the Sub -Committee. He pointed out that , of all the subsidiary bodies of the CTD, the Sub -Committee 
was the only one which  had its own Chairperson. He beli eved that it  would be interesting and 
valuable to hear, on a periodic basis, from the Chair of the Sub -Committee . This would allow the 
CTD to be in a better position to follow through on its own decision from 1995 for the Sub -Committee 
to report to the CTD  for consideration and appropriate action. To start such a process , he proposed  
to invite the Chair of the Sub -Committee to the next CTD meeting, so as to allow the Committee to 
be briefed on the work of the Sub -Committee. He hoped that this wa s acceptable  to Members.  
100.  The representative of Nigeria  said that , while he was not objecting to the Chairman's proposal, 
he wished to have clarification  on some  points . He asked whether a briefing by the Sub -Committee 
Chair might re -open discussions that had taken place in the Sub -Committee, and how this would be 
handled without creating a duplication of work. He also wished to know whether the CTD would be 
having an ov ersight function over the Sub-Committee . He explained  that his delegation wanted to 
be clear on the process of engagement , which Members needed to be comfortable with. It was 
important to ensure that the two separate tracks were maintained.  
101.  The Chairman  said that the decision establishing the Sub -Committee stated that the Sub -
Committee would report to the CTD for consideration and appropriate action. What he was proposing 
was in line with that decision. He also believed that a briefing by the Sub -Committee  Chair would 
add value to what was already contained in the CTD's annual report. In response to the query by 
Nigeria as to whether such a briefing might re-open discussions, he shared his view that the situation 
would be similar to  the presentation of the ITC JAG report that had taken place at the present  
meeting . In particular, after the presentation of the report, the floor had been opened for comments . 
                                                
3 The CTD's Annual R eport was subsequently circulated in document WT/COMTD/97.  WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Members could similarly have an exchange of views after a briefing by the Sub-Committee Chair , 
which he believed would be useful.  
102.   The representative of Nigeria  asked whether the objective was for the CTD to validat e the 
report of the Sub -Committee. He noted that the decision establishing the Sub -Committee  stated  
that the Sub -Commit tee would report to the CTD for consideration and appropriate action. In this 
regard, he wished to know how to interpret "consideration" and "appropriate action". As an 
illustration, he observed that it was possible that delegations which may not have part icipated in 
meetings of the Sub -Committee could raise issues on the basis of the Sub -Committee Chair 's briefing 
to the CTD . He wondered how the CTD Chairman would handle this. He also sought information on 
a number of  additional points, including with regard to the difference between a written report and 
an oral briefing, whether the Sub -Committee Chair's briefing would be reflected in the CTD's annual 
report, and whether the briefing should more appropriately take pla ce before or after the written 
inputs for the CTD's annual report were submitted .  He indicated  that he was r aising these questions 
to ensure that the process proposed by the Chairman would be complementary to existing process es, 
and would not raise any additional issues.  
103.  The Chairman  said that a key question related to what difference there was between the 
written report of the Sub -Committee's work – which was included in the CTD's annual report – and 
an oral briefing by the Sub -Committee Chair . He pointed  out in this regard that Member s could in 
any case make comments on either  the draft report when presented to them, or the briefing. His 
view was that, in addition to the written report, Members would benefit from a briefing by the 
Sub-Committee Chair . With regard to  the concern raised by Nigeria about the possible  implications 
of exchanges among Members after the presentation by the Sub-Committee Chair, he once again 
pointed to the example of the CTD's consideration of the ITC JAG  report at the present meeting , 
where he believed a useful exchange had taken place after the presentation of the report . He also 
pointed to the briefings which took place in the CTD Aid -for-Trade sessions, which he believed 
enrich ed the  discussions  among Members.  This was not t o say that discussions would necessarily 
take place  after the briefing by the Sub -Committee Chair , as this would ultimately depend on 
Members.  
104.  The representative of the European Union  said that it was the prerogative of the CTD Chair to 
invite the Sub-Comm ittee Chair to report  to the CTD , as this was in line with the Sub -Committee's 
TORs. She added that her delegation had  in several instances stressed that LDCs' needs and 
challenges had to  be discussed and addressed as a priority. Having the Sub -Committee Chair brief 
the CTD in person would be consistent with this priority. Her delegation therefore viewed the 
Chairman's proposal  as valid . 
105.  The Chairman  noted  that the Committee agreed  with his proposal .  
106.  The Committee took note  of all interventions.   
K. DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
107.  The Chairman  said that the next meeting of the CTD  Regular Session was tentatively scheduled 
to be held on Wednesday, 27 March 2019. An initial agenda would be circulated four weeks before 
the meeting, on 27 February 2019, as per the CTD's rules of procedure. After the circulation of this 
initial meeting notice, Members would still have the opportunity to request items on the agenda for 
the meeting. The agenda would close on 14 March 2019, and would b e circulated on 15 March 2019.  
L. OTHER BUSINESS  
108.  The Chairman  said that , after the last meeting, some delegati ons had approached him to ask 
for clarification on the procedures to request, and maintain, an item on the CTD agenda. He therefore 
thought it would be useful to s hare with the Committee  how he saw it . In the case of a new agenda 
item that a Member wished to request, he said that the rules of procedure were very clear . He 
pointed in particular to Rule 4 of the G eneral Council 's rules of procedure, as contained in document 
WT/L/161, and which the CTD also followed. The first sentence of Rule 4 stated that "Requests for 
items to be placed on the agenda of a forthcoming meeting shall be communicated to the Secretariat 
in writing, together with the accompanying documentation to be issued in connection with that item ". 
It was therefore clear that a request for a  new agenda item had to be communicated to the WT/COMTD/M/107  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Secretariat in writing. However, he did not wish to carry this requirement over to items that were 
already on the CTD agenda, and that a Member wished to maintain on the agenda for the next 
meeting. He observe d that the practice in the CTD for many years had been to maintain an item on 
the agenda if any Member so requested during the meeting itself. This was a practice h e wished to 
keep, as he did not believe that there was a logic in requiring a Member to subm it a written request 
before each CTD meeting, in order to simply maintain an item that ha d already appeared on the 
agenda. That being said, h e also stressed the importance for delegations to make it very clear in 
their interventions if they wished to maint ain an existing item on the agenda for the next meeting. 
This would help avoid any misunderstandings , and the Chairperson and the Secretariat would then 
have the necessary information when putting together the agenda for the next meeting. He hop ed 
that thi s clarified the matter, and indicated his willingness to hold further discussions on thes e issues , 
should any Member wish.  
109.   The representative of Nigeria  sought confirmation that it was not necessary to have consensus 
for an existing item to be maintained on the agenda.  
110.   The Chairman  replied  that items appeared on the agenda at the request of Members. I t was 
the prerogative of Member s to request  that an item be included, and maintained , on the agenda .  
111.  The representative of Nigeria  indicated that his follow -up question related to what would 
happen in the absence of such requests . 
112.  The Chairman  said that the present  discussion was taking place  under "Other Business ", and 
it was not necessary for the Committee to take a decision. He ind icated that it was important to 
clarify how to handle situations relating to agenda items under which no discussion had taken place. 
His view was that the Committee should not easily withdraw an item from the agenda . He explained 
that he would be hesitant to remove an item from the agenda if there was no discussion at a given  
meeting , in particular because some small delegations were not always able to attend all  CTD 
meetings. Having said this, he noted that the immediate follow -up questio n would relate to  how long 
to maintain an item on the agenda if there was no discussion taking place  over a number of meetings . 
This was a question that Members could  consider, although it did not appear to be an issue for the 
CTD at the present time.  
113.  The representative of Nigeria  recognized that the present discussion was taking place under 
"Other Business", and a decision by the Committee was not required . He said that all issues did not 
have the same ranking, and it may not be necessary  for all items  to be maintained for a n extended 
period of time on the agenda , regardless of whether or not there was discussion. A consideration on 
a case -by-case basis was perhaps called for . Taking the example of the item concerning the Work 
Programme on E-Commerce, he asked  whether th is item would disappear from the agenda in the 
absence of discussion in the CTD.  He also noted the Chairman's observation about the need to 
possibly maintain some items on the agenda , in light of the capacity problems of small delegations. 
He therefore believed that it was important for Members to reflect further on how to balance the 
various elements , so as  to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Committee.  
114.  The Chairman  indicated that he had noted the comments by Nigeria, and als o observed that 
some items o n the CTD agenda  related to Ministerial mandates . He invited Members to reflect on 
these issues . He additionally  indicated that, even if an item was removed from the agenda of a 
particular meeting, Members in any case had the right to request the item on the agenda for the 
next meeting . 
115.  The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________