RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/M/10 3 
 
 
10 November  2017 
(17-6111) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Trade and Development  
103rd Session    
 
  
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 21 JUNE 2017  
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Taonga Mushayavanhu (Zimbabwe)   
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ....................  2 
B. OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  2 
(i) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers  ................................ ................................ .. 2 
(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 Organization 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  ................................ .......................  2 
C. TRADE AND DEVELOPMEN T – WORK IN THE COMMITTE E ON THE BASIS OF 
THE CHAIRMAN'S CONCL UDING STATEMENT FROM  THE EIGHTH MINISTERI AL 
CONFE RENCE (WT/MIN(11)/11 ) ................................ ................................ .....................  2 
- 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)  ................................ .. 3 
- Operationalization of the CTD's mandate: a proposal to deliver outcomes based on 
the MC8 mandate – proposal from China, Cuba, E cuador, India and the African Group 
(WT/COMTD/W/192)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  4 
D. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  ................................ ....................  5 
- Gulf Cooperation Council ( GCC) Notification of Customs Union – communication 
from China, Egypt and India (WT/COMTD/W/175)  ................................ ................................ ... 6 
- Notification of the Agreement on Trade in Goods between the Association of 
Southeast Asian N ations (ASEAN) and Korea  ................................ ................................ ..........  7 
- Notification of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between India 
and Korea (Goods)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  8 
E. COMMUNICATION FROM U RUGUAY ON BEHALF OF THE LATIN AMERICAN 
INTEGRATION ASSOCIAT ION (WT/COMTD/W/224)  ................................ ........................  8 
F. WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  ................................ .................  11 
G. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE TRANSPARENCY MEC HANISM FOR 
PREFERENTIAL TRADE A RRANGEMENTS  ................................ ................................ ........  17 
H. REVIEW OF STEPS TAKE N TO PROVIDE DUTY -FREE AND QUOTA -FREE 
MARKET ACCESS TO LEA ST DEVELOPED COUNTRIE S ................................ ......................  17 
I. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 
 WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 2 - 
 
  A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1. The Chairman  said t hat the draft agenda for the 103rd Session of the Committee on Trade 
and Development (CTD) was contained in document WTO/AIR/COMTD/11 circulated on 
9 June 2017.  
2. The representative of Uruguay  said that her delegation wished to make a brief presentation 
under "Other Business" of 16 individual notifications corresponding to Agr eements signed by some 
member  countries of the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA)  under  the 1980 Treaty of 
Montevideo.  
3. The representative of Canada  sought clarification as to  whether the representative of 
Uruguay would merely flag th e issue at t he present meeting , or whether the intention was to have 
a substanti ve discuss ion. 
4. The representative of Uruguay  replied that her delegation intended to briefly flag the issue 
at the present meeting , without any expectation of substantive comments from Mem bers.    
5. The agenda was adopted  as amended.  
B. OBSERVERS   
(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 Devel opment Bank, the African Union, the 
Organisation 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 invited 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 Stat es, the 
Organis ation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Gulf Organization for Industrial 
Consulting, the Organization Internationale de la Francophonie , the Common Fund for 
Commodities, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPE C) and the 
Groupe de la Banque Africaine de Développement  
8. The Chairman  said that the positions of delegations were on the record. He indicated that , if 
there were no changes in positions to extend observer status to any of the applicants, the 
Committee wou ld take note and revert to the requests at the next meeting.  
9. It was so agreed . 
C. TRADE AND DEVELOPMEN T – WORK IN THE COMMITTE E ON THE BASIS OF TH E 
CHAIRMAN'S CONCLUDIN G STATEMENT FROM THE  EIGHTH MINISTERIAL CONFE RENCE 
(WT/MIN(11)/11)  
10. The Chairman  recalled t hat, at the Eighth Ministerial Conference (MC8), Ministers had, 
inter alia, 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.  On the agenda for the present meeting were two submissions 
containing proposals for work under the MC8 mandate. He observed that these proposals ha d been 
appearing on the CTD's agenda for quite some time now. He also recalled that  previous CTD Chairs 
held informal consultations to try and make progress on these proposals, but the situation had not 
changed for many years. The previous Chair had encouraged continued engagement among 
Members, including through informal disc ussions between the proponents of these proposals and WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 3 - 
 
  other delegations, so as to move the process forward. He hoped that some progress could be 
reported at the present meeting.  
- Committee on Trade and Development mandate: focal point for consideration an d 
coordination of work on development in the WTO – proposal from Barbados, Belize, 
China, Cuba, Ecuador, India, and the African Group (WT/COMTD/W/208)  
11. The Chairman  said that the proposal contained in document WT/COMTD/W/208 had the aim 
for the CTD to repor t on development -related work taking place in the WTO.  
12. The representative of Uganda , on behalf of the African Group , said that h e wished to 
intervene  on the two remaining proposals contained in documents WT/COMTD/W/208 and 
WT/COMTD/W/192 . He recalled the statement delivered by the Group at the 100th session of the 
CTD, and  informed the Committee that the proponents of these two proposals were looking 
forward to undertaking further consultations on  the proposals among themselves as well as with 
the most int erested delegations. He invited the Chair to facilitate these consultations and hoped 
that convergence could be reached soon  on these proposals . He went on to emphasize that the 
proponents did not have the objective of usurping the mandate of the General C ouncil, as some 
delegations may have felt. Rather, the aim was to fulfil the instructions of Ministers at MC8 to fully 
operationalize the mandate of the CTD. Recalling that the CTD had been established to serve as a 
focal point for the consideration and co ordination of development -related work in the WTO, he 
noted that the current reporting structure between WTO bodies fell short of appropriately fulfilling 
the CTD's overarching mandate. He explained in this regard that relevant decisions taken by other 
WTO bodies were not being regularly reported to the CTD, nor had the CTD been consulted on a 
range of development -related issues that had been taken up by these bodies.  
13. In order to operationalize the CTD's mandate, he suggested that other WTO bodies could 
submit a brief report on the development -related aspects of their work. He then provide d some 
examples of the type of information that could be provided to the CTD, including with respect to 
special and differential t reatment ( S&D), the development impact of the elimination of 
trade -related investment measures, the development impact of the operationalization of the least 
developed countries ( LDCs) services waiver, information relating to the implementation of 
Articles  66.1 and 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement and information relating to the work of negotiating 
bodies such as the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture. The Secretariat could then put 
the various reports together into a single document, which would be discussed in the Committee. 
The CTD would  also be able to provide guidance and appropriate recommendations to the General 
Council and other WTO bodies on any development -related work.  This would better link 
development to trade in a manner that would contribute to the economic development of the 
WTO’s developing, least developed and small and vulnerable constituencies. The compilation 
document would additionally help to address the capacity constraints of many delegations that 
were not able to participate in all the meetings of WTO bodies.  In clos ing, he emphasized once 
again the importance of improving intra -reporting procedures and operationalizing the CTD’s 
mandate by periodically reviewing the development -related work taking place in other WTO 
bodies. This would not only further strengthen the centrality of the CTD as well as its role as the 
focal point for development -related work in the WTO , but it would also accentuate the CTD's 
purview in considering all development -related activities of other WTO bodies.    
14. The representative of India suppor ted the intervention by Uganda. He recalled the mandate 
from MC8 and said that it was appropriate for the CTD to report regularly on the development - 
related work that had been taking place in other WTO bodies and to provide recommendations to 
the General Council on how to achieve better coordination within the WTO on development issues. 
He requested that the present sub -item remain on the CTD's agenda and expressed the readiness 
of his delegation to engage in informal consultations .   
15. The representative of  Nigeria  expressed support for the interventions  by Uganda and India, 
and said that the CTD's mandate from MC8  was clear and straightforward. He emphasized the 
importance of improving the intra -reporting procedures and operationalizing this mandate and  
encouraged Members to be open -minded so as to facilitate progress on this matter. In that 
respect, he supported the need for consultations , which would aim at exploring ways to give effect 
to the CTD's mandate.  WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 4 - 
 
  16. The representative of the United States  said tha t his delegation  had expressed concerns on 
the remaining proposals at previous CTD meetings. He noted  that the Committee had been  unable 
to reach consensus on items that had remained on the agenda for years . He added that the 
statement  delivered by Uganda  had shown that the substance of the proposal remained the same. 
In this light, he suggested that further informal consultations be held  to eventually generate 
additional information that the proponents might use to modify the ir proposals. H is delegation 
stood ready to work with the proponents if the y revised the proposals. Otherwise, the US would 
not see the value of maintaining the items relating to these proposals  on the agenda of future  CTD 
meetings.    
17. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation  had expressed its 
concerns on the remaining proposals on several occasions , but nevertheless  remained opened to 
further constructive consultations.  
18.  The representative of Canada  supported the suggestion of having revised proposals from 
the proponents , as it would otherwise be difficult to make progress on this matter.  She reiterat ed 
Canada's readiness to engage in informal consultations and d iscussions on this  matter .      
19. The representative of Japan  also expressed support for the suggestion  that the proponents 
should table concrete revised proposals. He r eaffirmed Japan's engagement to  make progress on 
this matter .   
20. The Committee took note  of all interventions.  
- 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)  
21. The Chairman  said that, while there were three proposals in document WT/COMTD/W/192, 
the first two proposals had already been addressed by the Committee. The first proposal, which 
was for the Secretariat to prepare an update to its paper on the implementation of S&D provisions 
in the WTO Agreements and Decisions, had been agreed to by the Committee at its 87th Session. 
The updated Secretariat paper was circ ulated in June 2013 and had appeared on the CTD's agenda 
for a number of meetings. Since then, there had also been another update of the same paper, 
which had been circulated in September 2016, in document WT/COMTD/W/219. As for the second 
proposal, which was for the CTD to report on development work in the WTO, this idea was now 
being dealt with in the proposal contained in document WT/COMTD/W/208 , which had been 
addressed under the previous sub -item. The remaining proposal in document WT/COMTD/W/192 
was f or the CTD to make a recommendation for parties to regional trade agreements ( RTAs) to 
submit their notification and information requirements jointly.  
22. The representative of India focused his intervention on the remaining proposal contained in 
document WT/C OMTD/W/192. He observed that the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs provided 
for several notifications to be carried out by Members parties to RTAs. In order to avoid 
misunderstandings and to help ensure a timely consideration of RTAs , and hence the smooth 
operation of the Transparency Mechanism, it was important for the parties to submit their 
notification and information requirements jointly. He went on to express the readiness of the 
proponents to engage in informal consultations with interested Members so as to reach a 
consensus on this issue. He recalled that , during some previous informal consultations, some 
Members had suggested that , as two out of the three items contained in document 
WT/COMTD/W/192 had already been  addressed, the proponents should subm it a single separate 
proposal on the only remaining item. In light of this, the proponents were holding consultations in 
order to submit a revised document by the next CTD meeting.   
23. The representative of Uganda  supported the intervention by India, and in particular the 
suggested way forward for the remaining proposal in document WT/COMTD/W/192.  
24. The representative of the United States  sought clarification as to  whether the Committee 
would keep the same agenda item at the next CTD meeting , or whether a new pr oposal would be 
reflected.  WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 5 - 
 
  25. The representative of India reiterated  that, during informal consultations, some Members 
had suggested that , as two of the three issues contained in document  WT/COMTD/W/192 had 
already been  addressed, the proponents should submit  a new document  containing only the  
remaining proposal . He indicated  that document  WT/COMTD/W/192 should remain on the agenda 
as it stood , with the focus being on the proposal relating to RTAs. When the new document was 
submitted, an appropriate reference number would be determined.    
26.  The representative of the United States  said that he did not understand India's reply. In his 
view, the Committee could make progress on its work by removing  document  WT/COMTD/W/192  
from the agenda . The proponents could then table a new proposal on the remaining unaddressed 
item in document  WT/COMTD/W/192 , for consideration by Members at the next CTD meeting . 
Otherwise, it would mean that no progress was being made.      
27. The Chairman  noted that the proponents intended to submi t a new document.  He suggested 
that informal consultations could take place so as to make progress  on the matter . 
28. The representative of the United States  said that , in its current form, the proposal 
WT/COMTD/W/192 had become confusing and could not gain co nsensus among Members in the 
Committee. H is delegation had repeatedly asked the proponents to clean up this proposal so as to 
correctly reflect therein the issue that Members were supposed to discuss. If India and the other 
proponents would come up with a revised proposal, then the agenda item concerning document  
WT/COMTD/W/192 should be dropped from the agenda and replaced by an item reflecting  the new 
proposal .  
29. The representative of Nigeria  observed that there was a common understanding that a 
revision o f document  WT/COMTD/W/192 would be made. This new document could be considered 
by the Committee at its next meeting, depending on whether or not it was  circulated  by that time . 
30. The representative of India said that he was not suggesting that the proponents  would be 
making a substantive revision of the remaining  proposal in document WT/COMTD/W/192.  He 
explained that, out of the three proposals in the document, only one remained unaddressed, and 
some Members had indicated that this situation was confusing. It  was in this context that he had 
said that the proponents would submit the one remaining proposal in a new document .  
31. The representative of Japan  indicated that his delegation was expecting , by the next CTD 
meeting, a new document containing only the remai ning proposal relating to RTAs. Discussion  
could continue on this basis.      
32. The Chairman  noted the discussion that had taken place with respect to document 
WT/COMTD/W/192. As there was one remaining proposal contained therein, he indicated that the 
issue would need to remain on the agenda. When a new document  was submitted, an appropriate 
reference number would be attributed to it. He encouraged continued engagement among 
Members  in order to have more substantive  progress by the next meeting.  
33. The Committee  took note  of all interventions . 
D. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  
34. The Chairman  said that he wished to provide Members with a brief update on the RTAs 
notified under the Enabling Clause that were to be considered in the CTD's Dedicated Sessions on 
RTAs. He indicated that for Egypt's accession to the Common Market for Eastern and Southern 
Africa (COMESA ), the parties had been requested to provide the data for the preparation of the 
factual presentation by 6 June 2017. Data was only received from Seyche lles. Turning  to the 
agreement between the Dominican Republic and Panama, he  informed the Committee that the 
Secretariat had received data and would begin shortly d rafting the factual presentation on this 
agreement. As for the accession of Afghanistan to t he South Asian Free Trade Agreement  (SAFTA ), 
he noted that the parties had not as yet submitted the data requested by 22 December 2016 . The 
Secretariat had received data only from Bangladesh for the original SAFTA notification.  
35. He then moved on  to the Arab  Mediterranean Free Trade Agreement (Agadir Agreement) 
between Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia,  and said that data had been received from Egypt, WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Jordan and Morocco. A draft factual presentation was sent on 11 April 2017 and comments, which 
were requeste d by 23rd May 2017, had been received from Egypt, Jordan and Morocco but thus far 
not from Tunisia. The Secretariat was also still waiting to receive clarification on data from Tunisia 
and Egypt which had been  requested by 15 July 2016. Moving to the agree ment between the Gulf 
Cooperation Council (GCC) and Singapore, the Chairman  indicated that although a draft factual 
presentation had been sent to the parties, the Secretariat was still waiting to receive complete 
data from the GCC parties, which ha d been r equested by 23  November  2015. He added that only 
Kuwait had provided data on which clarification had been sought by the Secretariat. Data on 
preferential tariffs and exceptions to the most -favoured nation ( MFN) rates had also not been 
received from the oth er GCC parties. In the case of the accession of Rwanda and Burundi to the 
East African Community (EAC) , the Secretariat awaited comments on the draft factual 
presentation, which were requested by 16 June 2014. For a number of other RTAs – namely, RTAs 
between India and Nepal, India and Afghanistan, India and Bhutan, and Cuba and El Salvador – 
the full set of data needed to complete the factual presentations had not been submitted by the 
parties. He urged the parties to these agreements to provide the data a s soon as possible. He 
went on to say 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 the procedures of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements ( CRTA ), a factual 
presentation of an RTA falling in this category 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 
ratificatio ns were complete.  
36. The representative of the United States  said that the US accorded great importance to the 
transparency of RTAs , and that the CTD was charged to maintain purview over the agreements 
notified under the Enabling Clause . However, a number of these agreements had languished for 
some time. Accordingly, he requested the active engagement of the Chairman , including through 
in-depth consultations with those parties that were supposed to provide comments on the draft 
factual presentation and/or the requisite data to prepare the draft factual presentation. The 
involvement of the Chair in addressing these issues would help identify the challenges that these 
countries had been facing in supplying the requisite information. It would also help the CTD to 
make progress on the vast and growing number of agreements that had been notified  under the 
Enabling Clause , but had not yet been reviewed and those that had not bee n notified but were in 
force.     
37. The Committee took note  of the Chairman's update.  
- Gulf C ooperation Council (GCC) Notification of Customs Union – communication from 
China, Egypt and India (WT/COMTD/W/175)  
38. The Chairman  said that the first sub -item under the present agenda item concerned the GCC 
Customs Union notification. The sub -item also refe rred to the communication from China, Egypt 
and India,  which was circulated in document WT/COMTD/W/175.  
39. The representative of Egypt  said that systemic concerns had been raised by some Members, 
including Egypt, over the legal and procedural implications of the dual notification of the GCC 
Customs Union under both the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV. He noted that a number of 
delegations had previously expressed the view that the Enabling Clause did not provide the 
appropriate legal basis to justify the  formation of a customs union involving the reduction or 
elimination of NTMs. However, others had argued that the non -prescription of criteria or conditions 
for the elimination of non-tariffs measures ( NTMs ) did not exclude customs unions among 
developing countries from the coverage of the Enabling Clause. The view of his delegation was that 
the CTD was the appropriate forum to consider the questions arising from RTAs with a dual 
notification. This originated from the CTD's terms of reference, which stipula ted that the CTD was 
the focal point for the consideration and coordination of work on development in the WTO. In 
addition, paragraph 4 of the terms of reference mandated the CTD to consider any questions with 
regard to either the application or the use of  special provisions in the Multilateral Trade 
Agreements and related Ministerial Decisions in favour of developing country Members, which 
included questions relating to the invocation of the Enabling Clause to notify customs unions 
among developing countri es. He hoped that Members could have a substantive discussion on the WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 7 - 
 
  systemic concerns that had been raised. The present sub-item needed to be maintained on the 
CTD's agenda until a solution was found1. 
40. The representative of India indicated that his interv ention related  to the three sub -items 
under the present agenda item, since the three RTAs referenced in these sub -items had been 
"dually notified" under both the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV. He noted that the systemic 
concerns that were raised by  China, Egypt and India over the legal and procedural implications of 
the dual notification of the GCC Customs Union under both the Enabling Clause and GATT 
Article  XXIV were pertinent even now, but they remained unaddressed. Some Members had 
expressed the  view that the systemic concerns raised in document WT/COMTD/W/175 were 
outside the scope of the CTD, and needed to be discussed in the Negotiating Group on Rules 
(NGR). The view of his delegation was that the CTD was the appropriate forum to consider the 
questions arising from RTAs with a dual notification.  Pointing to the terms of reference of the CTD 
contained in document WT/L/46, he noted that the CTD was designated to serve as a focal point 
for consideration and coordination of work on development in t he WTO and its relationship to 
development -related activities in other multilateral agencies. He added that the Committee could 
consult with other WTO bodies in addressing the systemic concerns raised in document 
WT/COMTD/W/175. This was in keeping with pa ragraph 3 of the CTD's terms of reference which 
entrusted the Committee to review periodically, in consultation as appropriate with the relevant 
bodies of the WTO, the application of special provisions in the Multilateral Trade Agreements and 
related Minis terial Decisions in favour of developing country Members, and in particular LDC 
Members, and report to the General Council for appropriate action. In concluding, he indicated that 
the three sub -items under the present agenda item should  remain on the CTD's  agenda until the 
systemic and specific concerns arising from "dually  notified" RTAs were addressed.  
41. The representative of Nigeria  recalled that his delegation had previously expressed its view 
on the systemic concerns relating to the particular subject. T herefore, he encouraged further 
consultations among Members so as to address as soon as possible these issues.  
42. The representative of the United States  said that the sub-item under consideration did not 
accurately reflect what Members were supposed to discu ss. His delegation had repeated in 
previous CTD meetings that the GCC Customs Union was not a dual notification , and therefore 
should not be part of any conversation on systemic issues. In his view, the item relat ing to the 
GCC issue was not clear, nor had  any work been performed on this issue  in the Committee. In 
closing, he suggested that the agenda should be cleaned up so as to accurately reflect the 
business at hand . 
43. The representative of the European Union  said that she wished to make her intervention on 
the three sub -items under the present item. She underscored that for the EU, it was of extreme 
importance to clarify the legal and procedural issues arising from RTAs being notified under 
different legal provisions . Nonetheless, the GCC Customs Union should be distinguished from the 
two other RTAs. This was because the GCC Customs Union issue was not one of dual notification, 
since Article XXIV of the GATT was the legal basis for notifications of customs unions. The EU's 
position had been  repeated on sev eral occasions at previous CTD meetings. Discussions at future  
meetings would benefit from having clarification from the proponents on what exactly the 
Committee would be discussing under the present sub-item.    
44. The Committee took note  of all the statemen ts made .   
- Notification of the Agreement on Trade in Goods between the Association of Southeast 
Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Korea   
45. The Chairman  said that the remaining sub -items under the present agenda item concerned 
the notification  of the Agreement on T rade in Goods between ASEAN and Korea, and the 
notification of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement on Trade in Goods between 
India and Korea .  
                                                
1 The points in this paragraph, made by Egypt at the 9 0th Session and also reflected in the minutes of 
the 92nd, 93rd, 95th, 97th and 100th Sessions, are reflected once again in the minutes of this meeting at the 
request of the Egyptian delegation.  WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 8 - 
 
  46. The representative of the United States  expressed his disappointment that these sub -items 
remain ed on the agenda. For his delegation, it was inappropriate to maintain th ese sub -items. He 
noted  that any Member had the right to notify a n RTA in a way th at it felt the most appropriate , 
and regretted that the sub-items were being used by some Members to adva nce their o wn wider 
agenda. H e then urged those Members that wanted the se sub-items to be maintained on the 
agenda to think carefully about the rationale for this. Referring to the remaining proposal in 
document WT/COMTD/W/192  that had been discussed earli er, he noted that  the objective was 
meant to be the submission of joint notifications  by Members . If the concerned delegations  wanted 
a discussion on this matter to take place in the Committee, this should be clearly reflected on the 
agenda.   
47. The Chairman  encouraged further engagement among Members to explore possible ways to 
move these issues forward. He expressed his availability to undertake informal consu ltations in 
order to facilitate finding solutions.   
48. The Committee took note  of all the statements made.   
- Notification of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between India 
and Korea (Goods)  
49. No Member took the floor under this sub -item. 
E. COMMUNICATION FROM U RUGUAY ON BEHALF OF THE LATIN AMERICAN 
INTEGRATION ASSOCIAT ION (WT/COMTD/W/224)  
50. The Chairman  said that a communication was received from Uruguay, on behalf of the Latin 
American Integration Association (LAIA) . This communication was circulated to Members in 
document WT/COMTD/W/224.    
51. The representative of Uruguay  read out the communicati on contained in document 
WT/COMTD/W/224 . She, inter alia , reaffirmed in full the contents of communications 
WT/COMTD/W/217 and WT/COMTD/W/220, circulated in the CTD on 14 June 2016 and 
3 October  2016 respectively. Referring to the explanation in the CTD Ch airman's communication 
WT/COMTD/W/223 on the criteria for drawing up the list of non -notified RTAs, first published in 
September 2011, she inquired why there was a modification of the March 2013 list 
(WT/REG/W/73) involving the inclusion of a separate titl e for "Agreements under the LAIA 
Framework". This new version of the list was introduced at the 68th session of the CRTA, and there 
was no record of the adoption of this new criterion in the minutes of the previous session. She 
additionally made reference to the CTD Chairman's comment in the communication 
WT/COMTD/W/223 concerning the lack of a "consensus" for circulating the document "Report to 
the WTO on Instruments Concluded under the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo" under the symbol 
WT/COMTD/N/*, and argued t hat WTO Members could not object to a notification made by another 
Member country. Should there be any questions, this could be done on the basis of the document 
notified and circulated as such. The Committee and the Secretariat did not have the authority to 
reject or object to a notification or to give it a different character from the one  required by the 
notifying Member. She inquired, without prejudice to what she previously stated, as to why the 
CTD Chairman believed that notifications duly submitted by  LAIA member countries could not be 
considered in the CTD, and were thus subject to the decisions adopted in the CRTA. According to 
paragraph 18 of the Transparency Mechanism, the CTD was the body entrusted with the 
implementation of the Mechanism for RTAs falling under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause.  
52. She went on to request that the CTD Chairman circulate to WTO Members , within the CTD , 
the replies to the EU's communication circulated as document WT/REG/W/109 of 
22 September  2016. She added that notw ithstanding the fact that communications 
WT/COMTD/W/217 and WT/COMTD/W/220 contained information relevant to many of the 
questions contained in the EU's questionnaire and despite  the fact that the questionnaire was 
erroneously submitted to the CRTA, LAIA m ember countries that were parties to the different 
agreements listed in document WT/REG/W/105, wish ed to reaffirm their continued commitment to 
the principle of transparency, including by providing additional replies in the annex of the 
communication  WT/CO MTD/W/224 . This was d one without prejudice to any comments or replies 
that the LAIA members might wish to provide individually - in relation to particular aspects of the WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 9 - 
 
  specific agreements to which they were parties - in a dedicated session of the CTD, as  provided for 
in paragraph 18 of the Transparency Mechanism  for RTAs.  
53. The representative of Brazil  said that the collective replies to the questions from the EU were 
submitted to the WTO as document WT/COMTD/W/224. He indicated that these replies were 
presented to the CTD , because for LAIA member countries , the CTD  was the appropriate forum to 
address issues related to instruments notified under the Enabling Clause. He reiterated the 
commitment of his delegation to transparency and its willingness to contri bute to improving the 
work in the regular bodies of the WTO.  
54. The representative of Argentina  associated his delegation with the statement made by 
Uruguay regarding the document WT/COMTD/W/224 on behalf of LAIA countries.  
55. The representative of  the Bolivaria n Republic of Venezuela  also supported the intervention 
by Uruguay on behalf of the LAIA countries , including the full content of the document 
WT/COMTD/W/224.  
56. The representative of the European Union  welcomed LAIA members' effort in providing 
replies to it s questions. She said that she wished to provide at the present meeting preliminary 
comments on the responses contained in document WT/COMTD/W/224 . Detailed comments would 
be provided at the meeting of the CRTA. First, she noted that the EU's questions to LAIA member 
countries were not erroneously submitted to the CRTA, as claimed by LAIA members . Indeed, 
these questions were submitted to the CRTA because the EU was seeking clarifications on the 
Agreements listed in the non -notified RTAs list prepared by th e Secretariat and circulated at every 
CRTA meeting. Second, she clarified that the EU was not objecting to a notification made by LAIA 
members and that the aim of the EU's questions to LAIA members was mainly to understand the 
content of their notification s and annua l reports, in particular their legal status . She went on to say 
that notifications needed to respect the notification template for RTAs and be notified by the 
individual members concerned by the arrangement, in order to trigger the notification process and 
allow for the necessary transparency. Third, she turned to the substance of the replies provided by 
LAIA members in the aforementioned communication. She recalled  one legal argumentation 
provided by LAIA members, which was that the regional agr eements (AR), Economic 
Complementarity Agreements (ACE) and partial agreements constituted "mechanisms for the 
implementation" and were the "instruments for the development of the objectives and functions of 
the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo" and were thus to be interpreted as falling under its legal umbrella . 
With respect to this legal argumentation, she underscored that for the EU delegation, the 1980 
Treaty of Montevideo was a political declaration of intent and did not contain concrete RTA 
disciplines and t ariff treatment provisions. She subsequently requested that LAIA countries clarify 
the meaning of "implementation".  
57. She went on to indicate that at this stage, the EU did not see how the subsequent tariff 
granting agreements  - which were built on the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo  - could indeed be 
characterised as implementing measures only falling under Section D of the Transparency 
Mechanism. Therefore, she requested that LAIA countries provide more details on some of the 
agreements contained  in the list of n on-notified RTAs so as to allow Members to understand that 
these agreements were indeed only implementing measures. Fourth , she highlighted the 
inconsistency  in the interpretation by LAIA members that a newly acceded country to LAIA 
(e.g. Panama) was cover ed by the original 1980 Treaty of Montevideo and therefore exempted 
from any notification, given that Cuba did notify its accession to LAIA. In closing, she reiterated 
the readiness of the EU delegation to engage in constructive discussions with the Chair and LAIA 
members in order to make progress on this longstanding issue  and enhance further transparency  
in RTAs . 
58. The representative of the United States  said that, while his delegation would continue to 
engage with LAIA members on the content of the documen t in future meetings of the CRTA, he 
wished to provide some preliminary comments at the present CTD meeting. He said that those 
comments were without prejudice to the US' view that these LAIA agreements remained non -
notified . Accordingly, the CRTA was the appropriate forum to discuss these issues. He additionally 
noted that the sharing of the US' views in the CTD should not be considered as the expression of 
the readiness of his delegation to consider that eventual notification s under the Enabling Clause 
would be appropriate. Turning to the LAIA communication itself, he argued that there were some 
fundamental unanswered questions about what exactly LAIA members were submitting with WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 10 - 
 
  respect to their annual and biannual reports to the CTD. For the US delegatio n, the recent 
submission made by LAIA members in document WT/COMTD/N/53 reflected further clarifications 
of these  members ' views.  While  this clarification was helpful and might contribute to make 
progress on this issue, further discussion would be  needed o n what constituted a notification. He 
subsequently moved on to consider LAIA members' responses to EU's questions. He said that 
these responses confirmed that the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo contained only political level 
objectives with respect to future ta riff and non -tariff preferences to be extended among the LAIA 
members . By way of illustration, he referred to the responses provided in paragraph 1.2 of 
document WT/COMTD/W/224 and said that the se responses had  shown that no specific treatment 
for any spec ific products was set out in the Treaty itself.  
59. He made  reference to two other responses  by LAIA members . The first one was provided in 
paragraph 1.3 (c), and stipulated  that specific tariff preference negotiations were subsequently 
undertaken in the conte xt of the Regional Agreements on Market Opening fo r Bolivia, Ecuador and 
Paraguay,  and the Regional Tariff Preference Agreement. Additionally, the responses indicate d that 
bilateral or plurilateral tariff preferences were negotiated separately under the Pa rtial Scope 
Agreements provision of the Treaty , and referred to as ACE. The second response was an assertion 
made later in the document - that both Regional Agreements and Partial Scope  Agreements were 
modifications of the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo , under paragraph D of the Transparency 
Mechanism  for RTAs. In light of these responses, he reiterated the longstanding view of his 
delegation that the 1980 Treaty contained only political objectives and accordingly, it was not 
appropriate to assert that the subse quent establishment by LAIA members of tariff preferences 
were modifications of an existing agreement.  He noted that while the additional Protocols to the 
Agreements negotiated by LAIA members might be appropriately considered as modifications to 
existing prefer ences according to p aragraph D of the Transparency Mechanism  for RTAs, Regional 
Agreements and Partial Scope Agreements did not fall under paragrap h D. Taking up the issue 
relating to the accession of Panama, the representative of the US said that he  did not understand 
how LAIA could assert that a simple clause in a political document that allowed accession by future 
parties had exempted existing and future parties from any transparency or notification obligations 
arising from the extension of new tar iff or non -tariff preferences.  He went along the lines of the EU 
and noted  that Cuba's notification of its accession to the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo was an 
indication that prior to the establishment of the RTA Transparency Mechanism, LAIA members 
recogniz ed their obligation vis-à-vis other WTO Members to notify these agreements. In that 
respect, he called upon Panama to properly notify all its relevant agreements. He reaffirmed  that 
his delegation would note for the record that RTAs containing preferential  treatment that went 
beyond tariffs would not be notifiable under the Enabling Clause. This was because the Enabling 
Clause was specifically limited to tariff preferences, and its coverage of non -tariff measure 
preferences would be permitted only in accord ance with conditions decided upon by all Members. 
For the US delegation, these conditions had not yet been established. In closing, he expressed  the 
appreciation of his delegation for LAIA members ' engagement on these important issues and 
looked forward to  continu ing cooperation on this matter.   
60. The representative of Uruguay  requested that the delegations of the EU and US send in 
written form their comments to her delegation, which would in turn transmit them to the LAIA 
Secretariat.   
61. The representative of Japan  reiterated the view of his delegation that a system ic issue of 
this nature should be discussed and resolved in the CRTA. Accordingly, he looked forward to 
constructive discussions on this matter at the July 2017 CRTA meeting. He took note of the new 
submission from Uruguay (WT/COMTD/N/53) on behalf of some LAIA members concerning their 
new agreements signed under the 1980 Montevideo Treaty, for the  period 
1 January  2016 - 31 December 2016. He underlined  that some improvements were made in this 
new sub mission in terms of the format of the document and its legal clarity , and considered these 
as a positive step forward. However, further examination of this notification would be needed, as it 
was circulated immediately before the present meeting. He reserv ed the rights of his delegation to 
make further comments at a later stage. Finally, he reaffirmed  Japan’s position that any 
substantive agreement concluded outside of the WTO framework should be reviewed in the 
appropriate forum of the WTO based on the fac tual information and through proper procedures.  
62. The representative of Panama  informed the Committee that Panama was in the process of 
taking the necessary steps to notify the pending agreement to which it was party. He added that 
further consultations woul d be needed to ensure that this notification would be as uncontroversial WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 11 - 
 
  and user -friendly as possible. In that respect, he requested Members to be patient so as to allow 
his delegation to do the requisite work. Moving onto the systemic concerns raised in the present 
and past meetings, he indicated that Members had different interpretations of the rules governing 
a Member's submission of notification, including the forum in which such notification would be 
made. In his view, in the event a notification would not meet  WTO Members ' expectations, the 
latter  should be pragmatic , because  an apparent shortcoming could be due to the complexity of 
the coordination that needed to be ensured. Otherwise, lengthy discussions would take place on 
procedural issues, - like in some past meetings  - and no progress would therefore be made on the 
substantive issues, including transparency, questions, and replies.  
63. The Chairman  encouraged Members to continue to discuss the issues relating to the LAIA 
agreements with a view to fi nding a way forward . 
64. The Committee took note  of all interventions.   
F. WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
65. The Chairman  recalled  that, at the March 2017 meeting of the CTD, the Committee had 
considered four communications on e -commerce. He asked if Members had any comments or 
views to share under this agenda item at the present meeting .  
66. The representative of Chinese Taipei  welcomed the fact that discussions on e -commerce 
took place at the November 2016 and March 2017 CTD meetings and that the Work Programme  on 
E-commerce had become a standing item on the CTD agenda. He informed the Committee that his 
delegation would be circulating before the summer break, written papers on e -commerce for 
discussion at the next CTD meeting. He also share d some of the views e xpressed in these  papers. 
He noted that e -commerce had changed the way of conducting trade in the modern world , because  
the availability and efficiency of digital transmission had created new methods of trading, such as 
e-books, 3 -D printings, and telemedi cine. Therefore, it was important to find ways of bridging the 
digital divide, in particular by helping developing country Members, espe cially LDCs, getting access 
to information and communication t echnology (ICT) infrastructure and services, hence enhanci ng 
their e -commerce readiness.  
67. He went on to say that one of the most useful ways of analysing the e -commerce matter  at 
the WTO was to look into the fundamental differences between e -commerce and traditional trade. 
In particular, barriers applied to the d igital trade through the Internet were significantly different 
from those encountered in traditional trade. He took the example of cyberspace trade barriers - 
most of them being applied at the early stages of the transaction process - and argued  that the 
restrictions that they introduced on access to data or information on the internet, had been 
preventing potential buyers or consumers from even noticing the existence of the foreign 
commodity. These would definitely preclude  the comparison of goods and serv ices, and any order, 
shipment or customs check , and therefore wipe  out all trade opportunities at the early stage of the 
transaction process. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises ( MSMEs ) would be particularly  
disadvantaged , as the majority of them did not h ave other channel s of access to potential foreign 
buyers.  Against this background, he considered important and fundamental that the WTO ensure 
reciprocal and equal access to the Internet for all its Member countries. In addition, this equality 
had to  apply  to all stages of an electronic transaction, including during the communication and 
access stages, before any transaction would be made or any matching of demanders and suppliers 
would take place.  
68. The representative of China  reiterated the strong commitmen t of China to the discussion on 
e-commerce, given the importance of the latter for development. He added that this commitment 
was exemplified by the communication that China had co -sponsored. He suggested that in light of 
the sensitivity and complexity of the e -commerce issue, Members sh ould reflect carefully on the 
e-commerce elements that could be included in the outcome of MC11. He went on to propose a 
series of questions on which Members could reflect in the perspective of MC11. These included: 
(i) what specific development ele ments can be reflected in MC11 e -commerce outcome? ; (ii) what 
kind of technical -assistance actions regarding e -commerce could Members take under the WTO 
framework? ; (iii) would Members be flexible to accept some best practices on e -commerce as an 
MC11 outcome provided that they would be best endeavour initiatives? ; (iv) would Members agree 
that elements like streamlining customs procedures on e -commerce and the mutual recognition or WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 12 - 
 
  promotion of e -signature and e -authentication woul d be beneficiary for developing Members and 
SMEs? ; and (v) what would be the challenges and opportunities for developing Members, 
especially the LDCs in this regard?  
69. The representative of Nigeria  reaffirmed the active engagement of his delegation on 
discus sion on e -commerce. He recalled the importance of the development aspects of e -commerce 
and noted in that respect that Nigeria had co -sponsored a proposal on e -commerce and was also 
member  of the Group of Friends of E -commerce for Development, which had or ganized several 
workshops to deepen Members' understanding on the e -commerce issue. He additionally reminded 
the Committee that the work being  carried out in the CTD was governed by  the MC10 Ministerial 
Decision  on E-commerce , which urged Members to contin ue the work under the 1998 Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce, based on the existing mandate and guidelines and on the 
basis of proposals submitted by Members in the relevant WTO bodies , as set out in paragraphs 2 
to 5 of the Work Programme. In closing,  he said that his delegation found the series of questions 
proposed  by China very pertinent and would review them in the perspective of MC11.  
70. The representative of the European Union  expressed satisfaction with respect to the 
discussion generated by the co mmunication that it had co -sponsored. She seized the opportunity 
to welcome the new co -sponsors of this communication , namely Moldova and Ukraine. She 
emphasized the importance that the EU accorded to technical assistance and capacity building in 
support f or e-commerce development in the digital area of its development agenda. She went on 
to argue  that the EU was keen on discussing challenges and opportunities in the e -commerce area. 
For example, the development aspects of e-commerce would be at the heart o f the EU's 
forthcoming Aid-for-Trade strategy. The EU also enacted recently a European Investment Plan, 
which might very strongly support digitalization. In addition, the EU was envisaging in its External 
Investment Plan considering the potential actions t o support digitalisation and a separate strand of 
work to support building/updating of the national regulatory framew orks, including in online trade . 
Another example was the recent initiative called "Digital for Development" that the EU had 
undertaken with  a view to streamlining development assistance in four priority areas related to 
digital economy  including , digital infrastructure, of which  the necessary regulatory frameworks; 
digital literacy and digital skills; digital for growth, entrepreneurship and job creation; and digital 
technologies as an enabler. She believed that this initiative could be part of future discussions on 
the challenges associated with e-commerce.  
71. The representative of South Africa , on behalf of the African Group , recalled that the African 
Group had been approaching the exploratory discussions under the Work Programme on 
E-commerce from a perspective that had given paramount importance to the development 
implications of e -commerce, taking into account the economic, financial, and dev elopment needs 
of developing countries. She indicated that the Group would be interested in an exchange of views 
and experiences on the basis of the current Work Programme on E -commerce. For the Group, the 
immediate priority of the Committee should be a fu ller assessment of the wide -ranging disruptions 
that would result from the fourth  industrial revolution, the growth of digital trade and e -commerce. 
In that respect, discussions in the CTD under the Work Programme should take up issues that 
would prioritiz e the needs of developing countries and LDCs, especially the challenges to and ways 
of enhancing their participation in electronic commerce. For exporters of electronically delivered 
products, these challenges included , inter alia , the improvement of acces s to infrastructure and 
transfer of technology, as well as the movement of natural persons.  
72. She went on to suggest that discussion on e -commerce should be framed around measures 
that foster inclusion and equitable development for all developing and least d eveloped countries. 
Specifically for the African Group, critical areas of interest for future discussion on e -commerce 
included the reality of increasing digital inequality, the importance of digital rights, the existing 
extremely high market concentration  levels in the current global e -commerce space, and the range 
of attempts at a national level to shape digital flows in order to influence trade and affect national 
digital catch -up. Addressing these issues would help African governments explore their own policy 
options, with a view to achieving Africa’s longstanding developmental objectives of industrial 
development, structural transformation and employment , in the context of the profound changes 
brought on by the so -called "Fourth Industrial Revolution ".  
73. She requested that the statement delivered by the African Group at the March 2017 CTD 
meeting be reflected in the minutes of the present meeting.  WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 13 - 
 
  74. This statement , as reflected in the Minutes of the 101st session of the CTD,  went as follows: 
the representa tive of South Africa, on behalf of the African Group indicated that the tabling of 
submissions in the CTD was in line with paragraph 1.1 of the 1998 Work Programme, and 
consistent with paragraph 1 of the Nairobi Decision on e -commerce. She said that contin ental 
integration, structural transformation and industrialization were the overriding priorities for Africa, 
as had been laid out by African Trade Ministers. She made reference in this regard to the 
Continental Free Trade Area  (CFTA) , as well as to Agenda  2063: The Africa We Want, and 
emphasized the need for work undertaken at the multilateral level to support Africa’s continental 
integration agenda. With regard to e -commerce, she said that the African Group approached the 
exploratory discussions under the  1998 Work Programme from a perspective that gave paramount 
importance to the development implications of e -commerce, taking into account the economic, 
financial, and development needs of developing countries. In this light, she believed that several 
issues that were included in the proposals under consideration were better suited for discussion in 
the Council for Trade in Goods ( CTG), the Council for Trade in Services ( CTS) or the TRIPS Council. 
Furthermore, some of the issues fell outside the scope of the  1998 Work Programme, or were 
being taken up extensively in other international organizations. She urged the proponents to refine 
their proposals in order to make them specific to the body where discussions should take place, as 
per the Work Programme.  
75. She went on to say that the African Group wanted the CTD to take up issues that placed at 
their centre the needs of developing countries and LDCs. She highlighted in this regard the 
importance of addressing ways of enhancing the participation of developing c ountries in 
e-commerce, and the associated challenges. A number of examples were provided, including with 
respect to infrastructure, industrialization and workforce skills. It was noted that the potential 
benefits of e -commerce for developing countries cou ld not be assumed or asserted. It was pointed 
out, inter alia , in this regard that fixed broadband penetration remained at 0.7% in Africa and the 
LDCs, and Africa was the only region in the world where broadband penetration remained below 
20%. Bringing abo ut socially equalizing effects would not be possible when only some had access 
to digital technology – whilst others had partial or no access, and also had no rights over the 
technology. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development ( UNCTAD ), 
four countries accounted for 80% of business -to-business (B2B) e -commerce, which was the 
largest form of e -trade. With regard to business -to-consumer (B2C) e -commerce, the Middle East 
and Africa together accounted for only 2.5%. Accordingly, discu ssions in the CTD had to address 
the asymmetrical nature of the existing global e -commerce space, in order to enable Africa to 
become e -commerce ready. One of the overriding questions of the African Group was how to build 
an inclusive growth and equitable development trajectory for all developing countries and LDCs. 
She encouraged Members to share their experiences on measures employed to develop capabilities 
in the digital economy. In closing, she expressed the commitment of the African Group to engage 
in a comprehensive discussion in the CTD on all issues relating to the development implications of 
e-commerc e. 
76. In closing  her intervention at the present meeting , the representative of South Africa, on 
behalf of the African Group , highlight ed some elements of  the African Group 's statement deli vered 
on the March 2017 CTD meeting , and reflected above . She noted that a number of issues 
contained in the proposals on e -commerce would be better suited for a discussion in the other 
relevant bodies, such as the CTG, t he CTS and the TRIPS Council. This statement also indicated 
that at least two submissions on e -commerce did not cover the most important elements in the 
Work Programme under development. Furthermore, some of the issues fell outside the scope of 
the 1998 Wo rk Programme, or were being taken up extensively in other international 
organizations. Therefore, the proponents were urged to refine their proposals in order to make 
them specific to the body where discussions should take place, as per the Work Programme.  
77. The representative of Uganda , on behalf of the LDC Group , noted that the proponents of the 
various proposals had taken into account the process that had been earlier suggested to Members, 
which was that submissions relating to e -commerce needed to be firs t taken to the relevant 
bodies, as set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the 1998 Work Programme. Discussions would need to 
have matured in these bodies before being reported to the General Council. He recalled a number 
of elements from paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of  the Work Programme, and emphasized that the 
non-negotiating  mandate of the Work Programme was exploratory in nature. He went on to say 
that, since the establishment of the Work Programme, the digital divide for LDCs had widened. In 
theory, e -commerce was supposed to help surmount the obstacles faced by weaker countries 
when competing with stronger players. However, in reality, most LDCs had to deal with a number WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 14 - 
 
  of constraints – relating to insufficiencies in basic infrastructure, electricity and internet access, as 
well as to the high cost of broadband connectivity. LDCs also faced a number of bottlenecks that 
prevented them from taking advantage of the opportunities that were theoretically available 
through e -commerce platforms. The LDC Group believed tha t, in order for LDCs to be able to 
benefit from e -commerce, the three key issues , including  access, affordability and availability , 
needed to be addressed . He went on to provide some figures that put into context the present 
situation of the LDCs. He menti oned, inter alia , that only 15% of the population in LDC s used the 
internet. Fixed broadband penetration remained at below 1% in Africa and the LDCs. In light of the 
low penetration rate in the Internet use, LDCs were not in a position to take advantage of  the 
benefits of e -commerce.  
78. He indicated that discussions under the Work Programme needed to focus on overcoming 
the challenges that were hindering LDCs from becoming e -commerce -ready. It was suggested that 
discussions could focus on a number of specific  issues, including access to electricity, access to 
digital infrastructure and cheap and fast broadband, inadequate skills, and technology transfer. He 
went on to express support for the intervention by the African Group, and particular ly noted that 
most o f the proposals under consideration fell outside the scope and mandate of the 1998 Work 
Programme. He invited the proponents to narrow down their submissions to issues specific to the 
CTD, and to focus on the elements contained in paragraph 5.1 of the Work  Programme, with a 
view to addressing the digital divide. He also highlighted the need to complement, and not 
undermine, initiatives within Africa, and in particular Agenda 2063: "The Africa We Want ". He 
believed that it was important to examine the implic ations of e -commerce for the structural 
transformation and industrialization of Africa, and what the impact would be on domestic markets, 
domestic manufacturers and service suppliers. Finally, he outlined the plans of the International 
Telecommunications U nion (ITU)  to connect 1.5 billion people to the internet, and regretted that 
funds were not being made available for this purpose. In this regard, he expressed concern with 
the downward trajectory in Aid for Trade, particularly for LDCs, and stressed the n eed for 
consistency in the message and practice of donors .2 
79. The representative of Uganda , on behalf of the LDC Group , added  that he wished to 
highlight some points of the statement delivered by the Group at the March 2017 CTD meeting. He 
said that the star ting point was the 1998 Work Program me on E-commerce that allowed it 
sufficient space to have an extensive and exhaustive discussion on e -commerce. This Work 
Programme  had no negotiating mandate, but was, however, exploratory in nature. He argued that 
while in theory the e -commerce phenomenon could be beneficial to consumers and businesses in 
weaker countries and help enterprises become stronger players in the international trading 
system, in reality, most LDCs faced a number of constraints, which prevented  them from taking 
advantage of opportunities theoretically available through the e -commerce platforms. These 
constraints included , inter alia , insufficient basic infrastructure and access to electricity and to the 
Internet, high cost of broadband connectiv ity. Discussions in seminars on e -commerce organi zed 
by different agencies at the WTO had shown that some WTO Members, including developing 
countries , had derived substantial benefits from e -commerce . However,  it was still unclear what 
domestic regulatory policy frameworks were adopted by these countries to afford their domestic 
industries the requisite policy space, and protection, to grow and thrive until such a time that they 
became strong, emerging and dominant players. In this light, the LDC Group requ ested that major 
players share their experience on the digital industrial policies that they employed to, inter alia , 
guarantee their digital rights and ensure their current prosperity. Turning to  the way forward, he 
suggested that as most of the submissio ns on e -commerce fell outside the scope and mandate of 
the Work Programme , the proponents should narrow their submissions to issues specific to each 
particular body. In addition, in the event this would not be possible, the proponents should focus 
on the d evelopment -related aspects of the work program me, with a view to considering the 
examination of issues at the heart of the digital divide that needed to be resolved in order to build 
the e -commerce readiness of LDCs. These included the improvement of acces s to infrastructure; 
transfer of technology; the movement of natural persons; and the use of information technology . 
80. The representative of Zimbabwe  expressed support for the intervention by South Africa and 
Uganda. She underscored the importance of exchang ing information in line with the mandate of 
the Work Program me and urged the Committee to focus discussion on the requirements of the 
mandate of the Work Programme , taking into account the financial, economic and development 
                                                
2 The delegation of Uganda on behalf of the LDC Group, reques ted that the statement delivered by the 
Group at the March 2017 CTD meeting be reflected in the minutes of the present meeting.  WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 15 - 
 
  needs of developing countries. She reiterated that there was no mandate to negotiate rules on 
e-commerce at the WTO. She believed that in light of the existing digital divide between developed 
and developing countries, it would be premature to discuss rule -making on e -commerce  at this 
stage. She went on to say that there was no consensus on the launch of e -commerce negotiations 
as required under paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration. She invited Members to avoid 
discussions of issues that went beyond the scope of the WTO and the mandat e of the Work 
Program me such as, the I nternet governance , which had been  one of core issues of other 
international organi zations such as the ITU and the World Summit on the Information Society 
(WSIS). She underlined the importance for developing countries of sovereign rights over data, as 
such data represented valuable national asset. Developing  countries should be allowed to have the 
requisite policy space - so as to build up and store their own data locally  - and the capacity to 
develop their own cross bo rder platforms. She noted that the 2017 WSIS Forum had clearly shown 
that the major challenges that Africa was facing in terms of digital divide were energy shortage 
and access to the grid connecti on. In that respect, she noted with concern that the digita l divide 
between developed and developing countries continued to grow with the rapid expansion of the 
digital economy . She  invited the Committee to take a developmental approach and deliberate on 
how to increase developing countries' capabilities so as to bridge this digital divide.  
81. She additionally requested that Members exchange information and discuss ways to promote 
transfer of technology to developing countries, improve infrastructure, promote the development 
of digital industrial policies and online p latforms in developing countries and address the extremely 
high market concentration levels in global e -commerce. Such discussions could be framed around 
the impact of the digital industrial revolution on inequality, digital rights, job creation and retent ion 
in developing countries as well as the type of development cooperation suitable for developing 
countries that needed to embark on digital industrialization. She then called on the proponents of 
submissions on e -commerce to revise their proposals so as to align them  with the mandate of the 
Work Programme, and in particular to make them specific to the body – CTD, CTG, CTS and TRIPS 
Council - where discussions should take place, as per this Work Programme. Finally , she invited the 
proponents to eliminate f rom the proposals elements that went beyond the scope  of the WTO or 
elements on rule -making.  
82. The representative of Swaziland  expressed support for the interventions by South Africa, 
Uganda and Zimbabwe.  
83. The representative of  the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela said that his delegation supported 
the examination of the e -commerce issue in the context of the 1998 Work Programme on E-
commerce, which did not have any negotiating mandate. He pointed to the importance of 
addressing a number of issues of interest to developing countries, including infrastructure for e -
commerce, the digital gap, in particular access to internet, digital platforms and the exchange of 
experience, so as to allow developing countries to derive real benefits from their participation in e-
commerce.  
84. The representative of Japan  reiterated the importance that Japan accorded to e -commerce 
and digital trade as well as to its positive impact on development. He re -emphasized the need to 
adopt a concrete and focused approach to harvest concrete outcome on e -commerce at MC11. In 
that respect, he suggested that Members consider what could be done from a pragmatic 
perspective for MC11 and beyond . He also  expressed the readiness of his delegation to actively 
engage in this discussion.  
85. The representativ e of India recognized that e -commerce had become a major driver of 
international economic activity and international trade. In India, e -commerce was transforming the 
way business was being conducted, and represented one of the fastest growing segments of t he 
economy. However, growth of e -commerce activities had given birth to new challenges, both for 
domestic and cross -border trade. These included issues relating to consumer protection and the 
sale of counterfeit goods and services, the safety of online pay ments, e -authentication procedures 
and digital signatures, taxation, as well as other challenges relating to shortages of skilled 
manpower, human resource development and logistics. As in most developing countries, including 
India, rules on these issues we re still evolving, his delegation believed that it was premature to 
discuss rule -making in the area of e -commerce. Instead, discussions on e -commerce should be 
limited to the non -negotiating mandate of the Work Programme, and particularly focus, in the 
CTD, on addressing the development needs of developing countries. For example, as the growth of 
digital trade and e -commerce was dependent on technology, the Committee should examine how WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 16 - 
 
  to ensure an adequate transfer of technology. Similarly, Members needed to consider ways of 
reducing the digital divide, promoting increased internet access, and enhancing the mobilization of 
financial resources to develop the digital infrastructure in developing countries and LDCs. He also 
highlighted the importance of cooper ation amongst Members, and sharing of experiences in areas 
such as consumer protection, safety of online payments, taxation, human resource s development 
and logistics. Cooperation in the area of cyber security, electronic signatures and electronic 
document s was also important. In closing, he stressed the need for greater efforts by national 
governments and the international community to enhance the readiness of countries to engage in, 
and benefit from, digital trade. He also urged proponents to narrow their  proposals and come up 
with specific issues that could be discussed in the CTD.  
86. The representative of Ecuador  supported the intervention by, amongst others, South Africa, 
Uganda, Zimbabwe and Venezuela. While also supporting any initiatives within the Work 
Programme on E-commerce, she called upon Members to bear in mind that many of the past and 
present proposals did not have great meaning in the context where the majority of WTO Members 
did not enjoy some fundamental services, including a minimum access to  the Internet and 
electricity. She was of the view that the Work Programme represented a framework for discussions 
that would help developing Members deepen the understandings of their needs so as to ensure a 
fair integrat ion into the global economy, inclu ding through digital trade. As developing countries 
had different experiences and expectations for MC11, it would be important to have a very clear 
framework for negotiations on e -commerce ahead of MC11. In that respect, proponents should 
reformulate their  proposals and  ensure that they aligned with the Work Programme on 
e-commerce.  
87.  The representative of Singapore  said that she wished to brief ly share information about the 
Lunch P anel hosted by ASEAN on 27 April 2017, as part of the UNCTAD E -commerce Week.  She 
noted that the event touched upon the development aspects of e -commerce and helped find 
synergies between the discussions taking place in UNCTAD and WTO on the development aspect s 
of e-commerce. The event featured the theme “Can E -commerce Trade Rules  help MSMEs in 
Developing Countries?”. The panellists included the WTO Secretariat , Singapore, Cambodia, the 
Global Express Association (GEA), the International Trade Centre (ITC) and the Thailand Vice 
Minister for Commerce, His Excellency Mr Winichai Chaemchaeng , who provided opening remarks. 
Panellists shared view on how e -commerce had enabled MSMEs to better integrate into the global 
economy, including by relying on existing WTO rules that applied to e -commerce as well as the 
common types of e -commerce r ules found in RTAs. It was noted that interest in e -commerce cut 
across development levels in ASEAN, and this was exemplified by the commitment to some 
e-commerce disciplines taken by ASEAN countries in the ASEAN -Australia -New Zealand Free Trade 
Agreement (FTA). She informed the Committee that the outcome document, which provided a 
summary of the Lunch Panel reflections and key takeaways from th is Panel was circulated in the 
CTD, the CTG, the TRIPs Council and the General Council. ASEAN Members looked forwa rd to 
engaging constructively with  other interested WTO M embers on how to take forward the work on 
e-commerce.  
88. The representative of Nigeria  highlighted three points. First, the Committee had the 
responsibility to continue discussi ng e-commerce on the basi s of the existing mandate and 
guidelines of the Work Programme on e -commerce as well as on the basis of proposals submitted 
by Members. Second, the proposal that Nigeria had co-sponsored was consistent with the focus of 
the CTD's discussions on the develop ment implications of electronic commerce. Third, the 
Committee should consider a number of issues of interest to developing countries - some of which 
were highlighted by previous speakers  - such as bridging the digital divide, access to 
infrastructure, tec hnology, capacity building, along with  other issues relating to the participation of 
developing countries in e -commerce. This would help Members have a better understanding on the 
e-commerce issues in order to take the e -commerce work forward. In closing, he believed that as 
in every Ministerial meeting there would be a  decision on e-commerce at MC11.  However, such 
decision could be similar to or go beyond the previous ones , and its scope would ultimately be 
decided upon on the basis of the Membership's con sensus. As a result, the issue as to whether it 
was premature , or not , to make rules on e -commerce would be decided at an appropriate time.   
89. The representative of Cuba said that as noted by her delegation  in other bodies of the WTO, 
Cuba was of the view  that the work on e -commerce should be undertaken only on the basis of the 
1998 Work Programme. She expressed  full support for the interventions by South Africa, Uganda, 
Venezuela, India and Ecuador.   WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 17 - 
 
  90. The representative of Cameroon  expressed surprise that th e agenda item under 
consideration referred to the Work Programme on E -commerce whereas the first delegation wh ich 
intervened made reference  to a market access  issue. He recalled that the discussions in the CTD 
should focus on the development aspects of e -commerce so as to ensure that developing country 
Members would be able to derive full benefits from their engagement on e -commerce. The 
negotiating aspects of e -commerce should be dealt with in other WTO bodies, while the 
development aspects should be addre ssed in the CTD  - as the latter remained  - above all, the 
body where the pertinence and effectiveness of Members' work was judged in terms of its 
development impact on developing countries. In his view, the main problem that should be 
addressed in the CTD was the digital divide among developed and developing countries. He argued 
that at a seminar organized by the Friends of E-commerce for D evelopment, the Director -General 
had acknowledged that half of the world's population experienced an important digital gap, which 
could further  increase. This explained  why the discussion in the CTD should aim to reduce the 
digital gap, rather than enlarging it to a digital gulf. Overall, he proposed that the Committee 
consider two issues: first, what policies could help d eveloping countries reduce the digital divide 
and benefit fairly from e -commerce ?; second, would traditional means such as development aid 
help address the digital divide? . Referring to the Trade Facilitation Agreement  (TFA) , he said that 
there were no  binding financial commitments from developed Members to finance the acquisition 
of capacity for countries that lacked such capacity. It followed that a WTO Agreement on e -
commerce should be able to help Members genuinely participate in e -commerce, including b y 
allowing developing countries to develop the requisite capacity to effectively engage on digital 
trade.  The CTD had a key role  in that respect . In closing, he hoped that the different proponents of 
submissions on e -commerce would take into account the in terventions by South Africa, Swaziland, 
Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, and India so as to reflect development concerns in their proposals.  
91. The Committee took note  of all the statements made.   
G. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE TRANSPARENCY MEC HANISM FOR PREFERENT IAL 
TRAD E ARRANGEMENTS  
92. The Chairman  said that he wished to provide Members with a brief update on the 
Preferential Trade Arrangements (PTAs) that were to be considered in Dedicated Sessions of the 
CTD. He noted that at a previous meeting of the CTD Regular session , Members had been 
informed that the US's trade preferences for Nepal were notified under the Transparency 
Mechanism for PTAs. The Secretariat had now received the US tariff schedule relating to these 
preferences and was in the process of drafting the fact ual presentation. Turning  to the other PTAs 
to be considered in Dedicated Sessions, he said that the situation remained the same as was 
reported to Members at the March 2017 CTD meeting. In  particular,  there were five PTAs that had 
been notified - since th e establishment of the Transparency Mechanism - for which the Secretariat 
had still not received the full set of data required for the preparation of factual presentations. 
These included the PTAs that were being implemented by China, India, the Russian Fe deration, 
Thailand and Chinese Taipei. He urged the notifying Members to provide the requisite data and 
information as soon as possible. In closing , he said  that he also wished to mention that some  
Members had still not submitted data on imports  by duty sc heme , as provided in  the Transparency 
Mechanism  for PTAs . These included Iceland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Morocco, New 
Zealand, Switzerland, Tajikistan and Turkey.  
93. The Committee took note  of the Chairman's update.   
H. REVIEW OF STEPS TAKE N TO PROV IDE DUTY -FREE AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET 
ACCESS TO LEAST DEVE LOPED COUNTRIES  
94. The Chairman  said that an item concerning duty-free and quota -free ( DFQF ) market access  
for LDCs had been on the CTD's agenda since early 2006. Under this item, delegations had 
provide d information on the steps they were taking, or had already taken, to provide DFQF market 
access to LDCs. Written communications by some Members had also been considered.  
95. The representative of Cambodia,  on behalf of the LDC Group , thanked Members for 
providing DFQF to LDCs, as mandated in the Hong Kong and Bali Ministerial Decisions . He urged 
them not to backtrack on the implementation of the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial and the 2013 Bali 
Ministerial Decision s on DFQF market access for LDCs, so as to provide  increasingly greater market WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 18 - 
 
  access to LDCs , in a manner that would allow them to raise their trade volume. H e also said that 
the developing country Members, declaring themselves in a position to do so, should, prior to the 
next Ministerial Conference, see k to improve their existing DFQF coverage for products originating 
in LDCs in a manner that would raise LDCs' trade volume. He went on to recall that the Bali 
Ministerial Decision had instructed Members to notify DFQF schemes for LDCs and any other 
relevan t changes , pursuant to the Transparency Mechanism for PTAs. He requested that the CTD 
should continue to annually review the steps taken to provide DFQF market access to the LDCs, 
and report to the General Council for appropriate action. Finally, he remind ed Members that the 
Group had submitted the draft Terms of References  (ToRs)  in the CTD for a clinical examination of 
DFQF implementation, with a view to identifying the problems hindering the full implementation of 
the DFQF market access. Therefore, he en couraged Members to inform the LDC Group of their 
concerns regarding th ese ToRs so as to allow it to accommodate these concerns.  
96. The representative of Uganda  expressed  support for the intervention by Cambodia.  With 
respect to the revised ToRs, he explained  that it had not been possible to accommodate all 
requests made by delegations during the consultations. In particular, the Group had decided to 
maintain the reference to the Hong Kong Decision, because  it was felt that this Decision provided 
the appropria te background and mandate. Furthermore, the removal of the reference to this 
Decision from the revised ToRs  had systemic implications for all LDC specific issues, including 
cotton, preferential rules of origin and the services waiver. He questioned the sug gestion that no 
references could be made to the Doha Development Agenda ( DDA), noting in particular that this 
had further implications, for example with respect to the implementation of the Ministerial 
Decisions from the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Confer ences. He also observed that the proposed 
clinical examination was not about the future, but rather about how DFQF had been implemented 
in the past. Any recommendations resulting from the study would have to be agreed to by 
consensus in the CTD.3 
97. The Commi ttee took note  of all interventions . 
I. OTHER BUSINESS  
98. The representative of Uruguay  said that , on 12 June 2017, Uruguay had submitted  a 
document  on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay, which were 
members of LAIA. The document , circulated as WT/COMTD/N/53,  contained 16 individual 
notifications that corresponded to each of the Agreement s in the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo  for 
the period covering 1 January 2016 – 31 December 2016 . The notifications were developed and 
approved by the LA IA member states under the related Agreements, on the basis of the model 
established in the document WT/COMTD/63 dated  12 November 2007. These notifications were 
presented under the individual obligations of WTO Members to notify the instruments concluded 
under paragraph 4(a) of the Enabling Clause and in compliance with sections D to G of the 
Transparency Mechanism for RTAs, adopted by the Decision of 14 December 2006, without 
prejudice to notifications submitted individually by LAIA member states to the C TD or the CRTA. 
She added that the LAIA signatories of the aforementioned agreements had expressed their 
willingness to provide any additional information that might be required with respect to any 
particular  aspect s of the agreement s at a dedicated sessio n of the CTD, in accordance with 
paragraphs 1 6 and 18 of the Transparency Mechanism on RTAs.  
99. The representative of Brazil  supported the intervention by Uruguay, and noted that the 
individual notifications of the agreements concluded in 2016 under the umbre lla of the 1980 Treaty 
of Montevideo were transmitted to the CTD and contained in document WT/COMTD/N/53. The se 
agreements were notified under the Enabling Clause and the notification was drawn up in strict 
accordance with the standard format provided in d ocument WT/COMTD/63. The notifications were 
submitted in accordance with individual notifications' obligations of Members, in compliance with 
the provisions in sections D to G of the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs. He stressed that all the 
information rel ating to LAIA Agreements and required in the notification format had been sent to 
the WTO Secretariat. Nonetheless, the delegation of Brazil was ready to supplement this 
information, including with respect to any particular aspect of the agreement to which  Brazil had 
been signatory, and in accordance with p aragraph s 16 to 18 of the Transparency Mechanism for 
                                                
3 The points in this paragraph , relating to the revised proposal by the LDC Group, were made by Uganda 
at the 100th and 101st Sessions. They are reflected  once again  in the minutes of this meeting at the request of 
the delegation of Uganda.  WT/COMTD/M/ 103 
 
- 19 - 
 
  RTAs. He reiterated the willingness of Brazil to participate actively in the discussions aiming at the 
enhancement of transparency provisions applicabl e to RTAs within the CTD.   
100.  The representative of the European Union  welcomed the notification contained in document 
WT/COMTD/N/53 . Her delegation considered this submission a positive step , as it addressed some 
of the concerns  that had previously been rais ed, including with respect to the use of the standard 
RTA notification format . She indicated that her delegation would provide its comments at a later 
date, as the 16 notification s contained in th e document were still under consideration.  
101.  The representativ e of Argentina  said that h is delegation subscribed to the presentation of 
document WT/COMTD/N/53  as made by Uruguay.  
102.  The Committee took note  of all interventions.  
103.  The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________