RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
29 June 2018 
(18-4112) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Trade and Development  
105th Session    
 
  
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 24 APRIL  2018 
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Taonga Mushayavanhu (Zimbabwe)  for items A to I  
and H.E. Mr. Diego Aulestia (Ecuador) for items J and K  
  
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ....................  2 
B. OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  4 
(i) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers  ................................ ................................ .. 4 
(ii) Further consideration of requests for observer status by the League of Arab States, 
the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Gulf Or ganization for 
Industrial Consulting, the Organisation 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  ................................ .......................  4 
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 
CONFERENCE (W T/MIN(11)/11)  ................................ ................................ .....................  4 
- Committee on Trade and Development Mandate: Focal Point for Consideration and 
Coordination of Work on Development in the WTO – Proposal from Barbados, Beliz e, 
China, Cuba, Ecuador, India, and the African Group (WT/COMTD/W/208)  ................................ .. 5 
- 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)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
D. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  ................................ ....................  7 
- Implementation of the Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements – 
Status Report on the Committee's Work  ................................ ................................ ................  7 
(A)  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)  ................................ ................................ . 8 
-  Agreement between India and Thailand (WT/COMTD/N/54)  ................................ .............  8 
-  Agreement between Mercosur and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) 
(WT/COMTD/N/55)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  8 
-  Agreement between Mercosur and Egypt (WT/COMTD/N/56)  ................................ ...........  8 
-  Agreement between Ecuador and El Salvador (WT/COMTD/N/57)  ................................ ..... 8 
(B)  Questions from the United States to the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, 
Mexico, Paraguay, and Uruguay regarding document WT/COMTD/N/53 (WT/REG/W/126 – 
WT/COMTD/W/232)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  9 
(C)  Status of the preparation of factual presentations – Report by the Chairman 
(WT/COMTD/W/233)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 
- Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Notification of Customs Union – Communication 
from China, Egypt and India (WT/COMTD/W/175)  ................................ ................................ ..11 
- Notification of the Agreement on Trade in Goods  between the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Korea  ................................ ................................ ......... 12 WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 2 - 
 
  - Notification of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between India 
and Korea (Goods)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 
E. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE TRANSPARENCY MEC HANISM FOR 
PREFERENTIAL TRADE A RRANGEMENTS  ................................ ................................ ........  14 
- Implementation of the Transparency Mechanism for Preferential Trade 
Arrangements – Status on the Committee's Work  ................................ ................................ ..14 
-  Status of the preparation of factual presentations – Report by the Chairman 
(WT/COMTD/W/234)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 14 
F. REVIEW OF THE STEPS TAKEN TO PROVIDE DUT Y-FREE AND QUOTA -FREE 
MARKET ACCESS TO LEA ST DEVELOPED COUNTRI ES ................................ ......................  14 
G. WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  ................................ .................  15 
- Ministerial Decision of 13 December 2017 (WT/MIN(17)65 – WT/L/1032) – 
Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 
H. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 17 
I. ELECTIO N OF THE CHAIRPERSON  OF THE SUB -COMMITTEE ON LEAST 
DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  ................................ ................................ ................................  18 
J. ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON OF THE COMMI TTEE ON TRADE  AND 
DEVELOPMENT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  18 
K. DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING ................................ ................................ .................  19 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1. The Chairman  said that , as he had indicated at the informal, open -ended meeting  of the 
Committee on Trade and Development (CTD)  held on 21 March 2018 , a convening  notice with a 
proposed agenda had been circulated four weeks in advance  of the present meeting . This had been 
done to address the request made at the 104th Session to reinstate the four -week timeframe for 
the issua nce of meeting notices, which was  laid out in the CTD's rules of procedure.  He recalled 
that he had also explained at the informal , open -ended meeting that Members would have the  
opportunity to consider and comment on the proposed agenda as necessary , and that a  more 
concrete agenda would subsequently be circulated according to the ten -day timeframe  for the 
issuance of meeting notices  – similar to what was mentioned in  the General Council's rules of 
procedure , and in line wi th the practice that the CTD had  been following for many years. He hoped 
that this approach  had proven useful to Members.  He went on to say  that the proposed  agenda fo r 
the 10 5th Session of the CTD was contained in document WTO/AIR/COMTD/13/Rev.1, circulated on 
13 April 2018 .  
2. The representative of Japan  said that he wished  to make a n intervention  under "Other 
Business" concerning an informal dialogue that his delegatio n would organize on the issue of trade 
and development.  
3. The representative of South Africa , on behalf of the African Group , indicated that she wished 
to make an intervention  under "Other Business" concerning the 2018-2019 Aid-for-Trade Work 
Programme.  
4. The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group, said that he also wished to make 
an intervention under "Other Business " concerning the Aid-for-Trade Work Programme . 
5. The representative of India requested clarif ication from the Secretariat concerning  the 
appearance on the agenda of the notifications of the regional trade agreements (RTAs) between 
India and Thailand, MERCOSUR and the Southern African Customs Union  (SACU), MERCOSUR and 
Egypt, and Ecuador and El Salvador. These notifications were listed under the agenda item 
"Notifications  under the Enabling Clause ". He referred Members to paragraph 18 of the 
Transparency Mechanism for RTAs ( RTA TM ) which stated, inter alia , that for purposes of 
performing the functions established under th e Mechanism, the CTD would  convene in Dedicated WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Session. I n this light, he believed that  the appearance of these notifications on the agenda of the 
CTD's Regular Session  was not consistent with the mandate laid out in the RTA TM.  
6. A representative of the Development Division  recalled that the appearance of notifications of 
RTAs on the agenda of the CTD's Regular Session had initially been requested  by a Member at the 
104th Session . Subsequently, at the informal, open -ended meeting held on 21 March 2018 , the 
Chairman had explained to Members how the notifications would be reflected on the agenda, on 
the basis of the requests made. Guidance would therefore be required from Members on the way 
forward in this regard. He also observed that , under the current  practice , Dedicated Session s on 
RTAs were not convened frequently. Only eight such sessions had been held to date. If the 
objective of listing RTA notifications on the agenda was to regularly take note of them, from a 
practical point of view it would be d ifficult to do so in the Dedicated Session , if the current practice 
were maintained .  
7. The representative of the United States , in response to the intervention by India, said  that 
his delegation, when requesting the RTA notifications on the agenda, had also  had to give some 
thought as to where these notifications should be placed. He indicated that his delegation was 
flexible in this regard . One possibility might be to maintain the notifications under the agenda item 
"Notifications under the Enabling Clause ", while having a separate agenda item concerning the 
implementation of the RTA TM, which would include the Chairman's report on the status of factual 
presentations and any other relevant issues. He added that, while the RTA TM laid out a procedure 
to follo w after an RTA was notified, the actual notification requirement came from the Enabling 
Clause. He also observed that the Dedicated Sessions on RTAs were convened only once a factual 
presentation was ready, and th e frequency of these meeting s was not sufficient to allow the 
Dedicated Session to  regularly address  notifications and issues relating to the implementation of 
the RTA TM.         
8. The representative of India said that it was  the Dedicated Session that had been entrusted 
to perform the f unctions established under the RTA TM , and these functions were not limited to the 
review of factual presentations . He explained that his delegation did not have any objection to 
discussing systemic issues relating to RTA notifications  in the Regular Sessi on, for example issues 
relating to the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) notifications. T he concern related to 
the listing on the agenda of the notifications of the agreements between India and Thailand, 
MERCOSUR and SACU, MERCOSUR and Egypt, a nd Ecuador and El Salvador, as these related to 
the implementation of the RTA TM . He stressed the importance of abiding by the provisions of the 
RTA TM . 
9.  The representative of the United States  said that his delegation had requested the listing of 
RTA notification s on the agenda in order to conform to established practices  in the WTO . In this 
regard, he explained that notifications under GATT Article XXIV were listed  on the agenda of the 
Council for Trade in Goods  (CTG) , while notifications under GATS Article V were listed on the 
agenda of the Council for Trade in Services  (CTS) . These notification s were subsequently 
transmitted to the CRTA. He believed that the CTD had a role to play in ensur ing the smooth 
functioning of the RTA TM, but also stressed once again that the notification requirement did not 
stem from the RTA TM  itself, but rather from the Enabling Clause. He additionally  indicated that he 
was unclear about India's position on this matter, given that India had b een requesting for many 
years the appearance on the Regular Session agenda of the notifications concerning the Gulf 
Cooperation Council (GCC) Customs Union , the agreement between the Association of Southeast 
Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Korea, and the agreeme nt between  India and Korea. He believed that 
it was important  to be consistent with regard to the reflection of RTA  notifications on the agenda . 
10. The representative of India indicated that, in the view of his delegation, it was appropriate 
for systemic issues arising  from the implementation of the RTA TM  to be reflected on the agenda of 
the Regular Session . However, the actual implementation of the Mechanism needed to take place 
in the Dedicated Session.  While RTA notifications made to the CTG and the CT S subsequently 
flowed into the CRTA, notifications to the CTD did not flow to any other body. His delegation did 
not wish for the CTD to go against the mandate laid out in the RT A TM. 
11.  The Chairman  observed that one reason  for issuing the agenda for the present meeting well 
in advance was to allow Members' concerns to be addressed ahead of time. He appreciated, 
however, that it was possible for some concerns to arise on the day of the meeting as well. Noting 
that the next Chairman would need to look into th e issues raised by India, he asked whether the WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Committee could proceed to adopt the agenda , with the inclusion of the three interventions 
requested under "Other Business".          
12. The representative of India said that , while  he did not wish for the Committ ee to agree to an 
agenda which contained issues relevant to the CTD's Dedicated Session on RTAs , he was 
nevertheless willing to go along with what Members decided, on the understanding that his 
delegation's  concerns were taken into consideration  and appropriately addressed, and were 
reflected in the minutes of the present meeting.     
13. The Chairman  proposed that the agenda item relating to "Other Business " be considered 
before the agenda items relating to the elections of the Chairpersons of the Sub -Committee on 
least developed countries ( LDCs) and of the CTD.          
14. The agenda was adopted  as amended.  
B. OBSERVERS   
(i) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers  
15. 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 Econom ic 
Community of West African States, the Economic Cooperation Organisation, the Inter -Arab 
Investment Guarantee Corporation, the Islamic Development 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.  
16. 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  
17. 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 would take note and revert to the requests at the next meeting.  
18. 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 
CONFERENCE (WT/MIN(1 1)/11)  
19. The Chairman  recalled that, 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. In this regard, there were two submissions containing proposals 
for consideration at the present meeting. The first proposal – contained in document 
WT/COMTD/W/208 and submitted by Barbados, Belize, China, Cuba, Ecuador, India and the 
African Group – was for the CTD to report on the  development -related work taking place in other 
WTO bodies. The second proposal under consideration – submitted by China, Cuba, Ecuador, India 
and the African Group – was contained in document WT/COMTD/W/192. In this document, the 
remaining proposal for co nsideration was for the CTD to make a recommendation for parties to 
RTAs to submit their notification and information requirements jointly.  He went on to say that the 
two documents had been appearing on the CTD's agenda for several years. Despite the infor mal 
consultations held by several CTD Chairpersons, including himself, little progress had been made 
to date. He recalled that , at the last CTD meeting , a number of the proponents had reiterated their WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 5 - 
 
  positions, while some other Members had reminded the Co mmittee of their concerns with the two 
proposals. With regard specifically to document WT/COMTD/W/192, the proponents had indicated 
that they were still working towards submitting a revised document, the intention being to reflect 
therein only the proposal  which remain ed under consideration. This message had also been 
conveyed at the informal, open -ended meeting held on 21 March 2018. He hoped that some 
further progress could be reported at the present meeting.  
- Comm ittee on Trade and Development M andate: 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)  
20. The representative of India recalled the CTD's mandate from MC8, as well as the six 
paragraphs in the terms of reference (TORs) of the CTD, as contained in document WT/L/46.  His 
delegation requested information from the Secretariat on the activities carried out relating to  each 
of these six areas over the past year. With regard to the proposal contained in document 
WT/COMTD/W/208, he explained that it was a simple rephrasing of the CTD's TORs . The 
proponents  believed that it was appropriate for the CTD to report regularly on the deve lopment -
related work taking place in other WTO bodies, while providing the necessary recommendations to 
the General Council on achieving better coordination within the WTO on development issues. He 
also indicated that  his delegation did not u nderst and the concerns expressed by some Members on 
the proposal . He suggested that these Members should go through the work carried out by the 
CTD in past years, and in  particular in 1996. In this regard, he  drew the Committee's  attention to 
paragraph 5 of the 1996 draft report of the CTD to the General Council dated 28 October 1996, 
which was  contained in document WT/COMTD/W/19.  According to this paragraph , the Committee 
had agreed to review the implementation of provisions in favour of developing country Members 
on the basis of contributions from Members and from the WTO bodies responsible for monitoring 
the implementation of the Uruguay Round commitments. To assist in this exercise, the Chairman 
had invited the Chairpersons of other WTO bodies to submit information  on how provisions in 
favour 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. In clos ing, he explained that the proposal contained in document 
WT/COMTD/W/208 sought to re -start work in the CTD that had been done in the past.  His 
delegation was open to discussions with other delegations  in this regard . He requested that the 
sub-item concern ing document WT/COMTD/W/208 be maintained on the CTD's agenda.  
21. The representative of China  expressed support for the intervention by India . He noted that 
the proposal contained in document WT/COMTD/W/208 was a paraphrasing of the CTD's TORs , 
and that Ministers had given the instruction to fully operationalize the mandate of the CTD as a 
focal point for development work . He believed that following these instructions would contribute 
favourably to work on develop ment in the WTO, and would enhance the cre dibility of the 
organization . Finally, h e highlighted the proponents ' openness to participate in small -group 
consultations with interested Members , and  requested that the sub -item concerning document 
WT/COMTD/W/208 be maintained on the agenda.  
22. The represen tative of Ecuador  requested that the present sub-item be maintained on the 
CTD's agenda.  
23. The representative of South Africa , on behalf of the African Group, indicated  that the Group 
wished for documents WT/COMTD/W/192 and WT/COMTD/W/208 to remain on the agenda . 
24. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation's understanding of the 
MC8 mandate was different from that of some other Members. H er delegation's view was that, in 
order to i mplement the MC8 mandate, the CTD should  further explor e the positive link between 
trade and development . This needed to be based on constructive exchanges on clearly  identified 
topics , in line with the instruction 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 , and the  European Union  had engaged constructively in the 
discussions that had led to agreement . Howe ver, her delegation continued to have concerns with 
the proposals that remained under consideration, as they  did not respond to this requirement.  She 
indicated the European Union 's openness to meet with the proponents in order to try to better 
understand t he objective s underlying these proposals.  WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 6 - 
 
  25. The representative of Canada  indicated that her delegation continued to have concerns with 
the proposal contained in document WT/COMTD/W/208. Canada did not believe that the CTD had 
the authority to require other W TO bodies to report to it , nor did it have the authority to provide 
recommendations to the General Council on the work undertaken by other bodies. She also 
observed that attempt s to separat e out  the development -related aspects of other 
Committees’  work would be challenging , and might trigger a theoretical debate about what 
constituted development . Additionally, such an approach could create a duplicative process  – 
which  would not be desirable in light of resource constraints  – and might water  down discuss ions 
through the absence of technical experts from the substantive Committees. In closing , she said 
that the end  objecti ves of the proposal , and what exactly would be achieved,  remained unclear to 
her delegation . 
26. The representative of the United States  indicated that a sufficient  number of years had 
passed for the two remaining proposals to have been fully considered by the Committee . The 
proponents needed to address the concerns raised by other Members  – either  by revising their 
proposals, or by dropping the proposals  altogether. The sub -items concerning these proposals 
needed to  be removed from the CTD's agenda until the proponents had something new to offer. 
The United States had repeatedly stated that there was no consensus for these proposals to 
remain  on the agenda . It was not the case that there was any unfinished business to be 
addressed .  
27. The representative of India explained that the proponents of WT/COMTD/W/208 simply 
wished for the CTD to restart work that it had been doing in the past. He pointe d out that, in 1996, 
the CTD Chairman had invited the Chairpersons of other WTO bodies to submit information on how 
provisions in favour of developing countries had been dealt with in their respective Committees , 
and that the Secretariat had prepared background documentation presenting the replies received 
in an analytical format. He requested the Secretariat to provide the references to the background 
documentation that had been prepared .  
28. A representative of the Development Division  indicate d that the Secretariat would look to 
find the information requested by India, and would be in touch with the Indian delegation in this 
regard . 
29. The Chairman  encouraged continued engagement among Members in order to try and make 
progress . 
30. 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)    
31. The representative of India referred to the remaining proposal in document 
WT/COMTD/W/192, which was for the CTD to make a recommendation for the parties to RTAs to 
submit their notification and information requirements jointly. He said that the RTA TM provided 
for several notifications to be carrie d out by Members , party to RTAs. In orde r to avoid 
misunderstandings  and to help ensure a timely consideration of RTAs, and hence the smooth 
operation of the RTA TM, it was important for the parties  to submit their notification and 
information requirements jointly. Based on the suggestions by some  Members , the proponents 
were continuing their consultations with their capitals with a view to submitt ing a revision of 
document WT/COMTD/W/192 so as to reflect only the remaining proposal.  The matter of removing 
the other proposals from the document  was being carefully considered. A particular concern in this 
regard related to the removal of the proposal calling for the Secretariat to update its document on 
the implementation of special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions in the WTO Agreements 
and Decisions , since there had been no update to th e document since 2016. In closing , he 
expressed the proponents' willingness  to engage in informal consultatio ns with interested Members 
in order to make progress .  
32. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation  always welcomed the 
opportunity to discuss the RTA TM in the CTD. With respect to the remaining proposal contained in 
document WT/COMTD/W/192, the United States had repeatedly indicated  that this proposal WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 7 - 
 
  suggested a diminishing of Members' substantive rights and obligations under the GATT, the GATS, 
and the Enabling Clause. In his delegat ion's view, there was  no prospect for consensus on th e 
proposal in either the CTD or the CRTA. The only outcome from the proposal would be to provide 
one Member with the right to prevent others  from complying with the ir notification obligations , 
which  would be prejudicial in the face of any dispute settlement proceedings regarding a particular 
RTA. The proponents had failed to address this concern. Finally, he noted that notification 
obligations were not embedded in the RTA TM, but rather in the GATT, the G ATS and the Enabling 
Clause.  
33. The representative of Canada  welcomed the indication from India that the proponents were 
working towards submitting a revision to document WT/COMTD/W/192. She noted that India had 
observed in its intervention that the Secretar iat paper  on the implementation of S&D provisions in 
the WTO Agreements and Decisions  had not been updated since 2016. In this regard, she recalled 
that the Committee had agreed that the report  would be updated  after two years, and her 
delegation was therefore expecting an update in 2018. She hoped that this would address India's 
concern. She also noted that Canada did not support the remaining proposal in document  
WT/COMTD/W/192 . In her delegation's view, notif ications of RTAs should remain the responsibility 
of individual Members , and a requirement for joint notifications risked exacerbating issues with 
regard to non-notified RTAs. It was also not clear how joint notifications would contribute to 
fulfilling the  instructions from MC8 to fully operationaliz e the mandate of the CTD as a focal point 
for development work. Finally, she noted that , pursuant to paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration, the CRTA had been instructed to consider systemic issues arising from RTAs.    
34. The representative of the European Union  indicated her delegation's interest in seeing a 
revised version of document WT/COMTD/W/192 . She noted that her delegation was expecting an 
update in 2018 to the Secretariat paper  on the implemen tation of S&D provisions  in the WTO 
Agreements and Decisions , and therefore did not believe that this matter should be a concern for 
the proponents . With regard to the remaining proposal in the document, she shared her 
delegation's view that this should be  part of a wider discussion in the context of the 
implementation of paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.   
35. The representative of India said that , while he agreed with the United States that 
notification obligations stem med from the  GATT, the GATS and the  Enabling Clause, it was the RTA 
TM that laid out the procedures to consider  the notified RTAs. H is delegation 's view  was that 
systemic issues relating to RTAs – including those addressed in the remaining proposal contained 
in document WT/C OMTD/W/192 – needed to be discussed in the Regular Session of the CTD. 
However, for RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause , the implementation of the RTA TM  needed 
to take place in the CTD's Dedicated Session on RTAs. H e requested that th e present sub-item be 
maintained on the agenda.     
36. The Chairman  encouraged continued engagement among  Members in order to try and make 
progress.  
37. The Committee took note  of all interventions.  
D. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  
- Implementation of the Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements – 
Status Report on the Committee's Work  
38. The Chairman  said that he wished to share a few observations under the present  sub-item, 
since this was the first time that it appeared on th e CTD's agenda. He recalled that, at the last 
meeting, a number of concerns were raised – and specific requests were made – regarding the 
implementation of the RTA TM  in the CTD, in particular in the context of the need for closer 
harmonization between the practices in the CTD and the CRTA. As was the case with past CTD 
Chairpersons , he believed  that it was in Members' interests for the CTD and CRTA to maintain 
similar  practices , to the extent possible, in the implementation of the Mechanism. Furthermore, as 
CTD Chair man, he believed that it was important for him to address the concerns  that had been  
raised. Accordingly, along the lines of the requests made  – and in line with what he had explained 
at the informal, open -ended meeting held on 21 March 2018  – notifications  of RTAs  under the 
Enabling Clause were specifically listed on the agenda of the present meeting. He noted that a WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 8 - 
 
  similar practice had recently started in  the CRTA . In addition , his report on the status of 
preparation factual presentations ha d been circulated as a Commit tee document, similar to what 
was done  in the CRTA.  
39. He also recalled  another concern raised at the last CTD meeting , which was that, while CRTA 
document symbols allowed a tracking of all subsequent documentation relating to an individual 
RTA from the time of notification, this was not the case in the CTD. After discussing the matter 
with the Secretariat, it was his understanding  that n otifications in the CTD – which concerned not 
only RTAs, but also G eneralized System of Preferences (G SP) schemes and other preferential trade 
arrangements ( PTAs) – were circulated according to the document series which had been applied 
since 1995. A uniqu e number for each RTA or PTA had then been assigned for subsequent 
documentation – for example , factual presentations or questions  and replies documents. However, 
to address the concern raised, it was possible for the unique number to be henceforth reflect ed on 
the notification itself. Finally, h e inform ed the Committee  that he had recently met with the 
Chairman of the CRTA to discuss issues relating to the implementation of the RTA TM. He believed 
that this meeting had been useful for both Chair s, as it ha d allowed them to compare practices and 
procedures across the two Committees, with the  participation of the respective  Secretariats. It was 
felt that periodic m eetings between the two Chairs  – and continued regular meetings betwe en the 
respective Secretari ats – should take place  on issues relating to the impl ementati on of the RTA 
TM. From his perspective  as CTD Chair man, he had taken away from the discussion the potential 
need for more regular consultations with the parties to RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause. In 
a number of cases, for example, the full set of data or information required for the preparation of 
the factual presentations had not as yet been submitted. He also believed that it might be worth 
following up on issues relating to the implementation reports due under paragraph 15 of the RTA 
TM, since the CTD had not received any as yet. It would be for his successor to consider how to 
take some of these issues forward.   
(A)  Notifications received pur suant to Enabling Clause (Paragraph 4(a))   
-  Notification of Regional Trade Agreement – Submitted by Argentina, Brazil,    
Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay (WT/COMTD/N/53)  
 -  Agreement between India and Thailand (WT/COMTD/N/54)  
-  Agreement between Mercosur and the Southern African Customs Union  (SACU) 
(WT/COMTD/N/55)  
 - Agreement between Mercosur and Egypt (WT/COMTD/N/56)  
 - Agreement between Ecuador and El Salvador (WT/COMTD/N/57)  
40. The Chairman  said that  the notifications listed under  the present  sub-item concerned  firstly 
document WT/COMTD/N/53, submitted by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay. 
The other listed notifications were the agreement between India and Thailand circulated in 
document WT/COMTD/N/54; the  agreement between MERCOSUR and SACU  circulated in document 
WT/COMTD/N/55; the agreement between MERCOSUR and Egypt circulated in document 
WT/COMTD/N/56; and the agreement between Ecuador and El Salvador circulated in document 
WT/COMTD/N/57.  
41. The representa tive of the European Union  requested  clarification from the  parties to th e 
MERCOSUR -SACU agreement  as to  why they had notified th is agreement under the Enabling 
Clause . She indicated in this regard that paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause did not cover 
preferential non -tariff barriers, and could not justify the elimination of such barriers among the 
parties to customs unions. The view of her delegation was that customs unions needed to be 
notified under GATT Article XXIV. She added  that the agreement went beyond preferential tariff 
concessions, and cover ed areas such as t echnical barriers to trade (TBT), sanitary and 
phytosanitary (SPS)  measures  and safeguards. Finally, she called on  Members that had notified 
RTAs to cooperate with the Secretariat in the preparation of factual presentations.   
42. The representative of the United States  indicated his  appreciation to the Chairman for the 
efforts made to address the concerns rai sed at the previous meeting regarding the implementation WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 9 - 
 
  of the RTA TM  in the CTD , and expressed hope that the incoming  Chairman would continue the 
work in this regard. He welcomed the placement of RTA notifications on the agenda , as he believed 
this would help enhance transparency and provide the Committee with the opportunity to 
comment on the regional integration efforts of Members. He also express ed support for the points  
raised by the European Union,  and shared his delegation's view that the Enab ling Clause provided 
only for tariff concessions . With regard to the India-Thailand agreement and the MERCOSUR -SACU 
agreement , he urged the parties  to provide the data and information that would allow the 
Secretariat to prepare the factual presentations. He indicated that his delegation would consider 
requesting these notifications back on the  agenda,  if there was no progress in this regard . Turning 
to the Ecuador -El Salvador  agreement , he observed  that the agreement went beyond tariff 
concessions, and in this light questioned the appropriateness of notifying it under the Enabling 
Clause. In addition, noting that the agreement had been notified only by El Salvador, he indicated 
that such a notificat ion would not be  possible if the remaining proposal contained in document 
WT/COMTD/W/192 – discussed under the previous agenda item – were implemented. This 
illustrated the point made by his delegation several times, which was that it was the individual 
right of a Member to make a notification, and this should not be affected  by a requirement to 
notify an RTA jointly.        
43. The representative of Paraguay  inquired whether the points raised by the European Union 
and the United States on the MERCOSUR -SACU agr eement could be provided in writing, so that 
the parties could transmit them to their capitals . She also indicated that the parties were in touch 
with the Secretariat regard ing the preparation of the factual presentation .  
44. The representative of South Afric a said that, like Paraguay, she wished to request the 
European Union and the United States to provide their comments on the MERCOSUR -SACU 
agreement in writing. She also indicated that the deadline for the submission of data to the 
Secretariat had not yet p assed. The parties were presently working to submit the required data . 
45.  The representative of India reiterated his delegation's view that the present sub -item 
should not have been included on the agenda of the CTD's Regular Session . India believed that 
notifications of RTAs should form part of the agenda of the CTD 's Dedicated Session on RTAs . He 
noted that his delegation had agreed to include this sub -item on the agenda for the present 
meeting, with the understanding that the Chairman would facilitate d iscussion s on a way forward 
in this regard. He did not wish for a precedent to be set for future meetings of the Regular 
Session.  
46.  The Committee took note  of the interventions made . 
(B)  Questions from the United States to the delegations of Ar gentina, Br azil, Chile, 
Mexico,  Paraguay, and Uruguay regarding document WT/COMTD/N/53 
(WT/REG/W/126 – WT/COMTD/W/232)  
47. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation's questions to Argentina, 
Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, and Uruguay regarding document WT/COMTD/N/53 had been 
circulated in both the CTD and the CRTA. While these questions relat ed to a notification made  to 
the CTD, the U nited S tates felt that it was necessary and appropriate to submit this document to 
the CRTA as well, because the issues raised therein had been under discussion in the CRTA for 
some time. He said that the United States  had significant concerns regarding the incon sistent 
implementation of the RTA TM across the two bodies, and actions taken in one Committee had 
implications for the other Committee. He also drew Members' attention to the European Union's 
questions to the LAIA member countries, circulated in the CRTA in document WT/REG/W/124 . With 
regard to document WT/COMTD/N/53, he explained that his delegation had circulated its questions 
because the intent of the document  was unclea r, and this lack of clarity undermin ed the purpose of 
notification obligations. His delegation was seeking  clarification on why the parties had chosen to 
deviate from Committee practice with respect to the use of the notification format, which had 
always been understood to relate to only one agreement under a  particular document symbol . He 
asked whether the Members that had submitted the document were intending to notify 
agreements, or modifications to previously notified agreements. His delegation was raising this 
issue because the document contained sixteen different instruments, cove ring five separate 
agreements , which  did not have the same signatories.  WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 10 - 
 
  48. In addition, he noted that some of the instruments refer red to in the document related to 
RTAs that had never been notified to the WTO. In this light, his delegation did not believe that 
these could be considered as subsequent notification s, but instead had to be understood as 
notifications of the RTAs themselves, thereby triggering the process for review under the RTA TM. 
The document apparently aimed to serve distinctly different purposes for each of the different 
instruments , and his delegation therefore had difficulties accepting it in its current form.  With 
regard to the cover note on the document, he observed that there appeared to be  a conditionality 
applied to the submission, which indicated that the document  was without prejudice to 
notifications submitted individually by LAIA members. This conditionality made the document 
meaningless, as it implied that the document had not been su bmitted by the parties, or that it 
would have no standing in the event that another document was submitted. It remained unclear to 
his delegation how the approach taken by the parties in document WT/COMTD/N/53 would 
facilitate the implementation and functi oning of the RTA TM. In closing, he expressed his hope that 
responses to his delegation's questions would be received soon and that, through a continued 
dialogue, his delegation  would be able to better understand the intention of the parties, and that 
outstanding differences  of views  could be resolved . 
49. The representative of Brazil  said that the concerned delegations were currently coordinating 
and consulting amongst themselves in order to provide  in the CTD their responses to the questions 
raised by th e United States.  
50. The representative of Argentina  indicated that the concerned delegations were working on 
their responses, which would be provided in the CTD.  
51. The representative of Mexico  said that her delegation was working with the other  concerned 
delega tions with a view to providing responses as soon as possible.  
52. The representative of Chile indicated that the concerned delegations were currently working 
to submit their responses to the questions raised by the United States.  
53. The representative of Uruguay  said that the concerned delegations would provide responses 
to the questions from the United States as soon as possible. She additionally asked if the 
United  States could provide its comments at the present meeting in writing.  
54. The representative of the European Union  believed that the questions posed by the 
United  States were pertinent , and would allow the parties in their responses to address some of 
the concerns raised on their notification. She reminded the Committee that her delegation  had 
submitted a number of  questions to LAIA member countries in the CRTA . Finally , she welcomed 
the consultations that had taken place between the CTD and CRTA Chairs, and shared her view  
that regular exchanges would be helpful.   
55. The representative of Canada  said that her delegation  attached  great  importance in ensuring 
that Members respect ed their obligations under the RTA TM. She welcomed the questions posed by 
the United States, and expressed hope that this would lead to an exchange of information that 
would help Mem bers better understand the basis on which the notifications contained in document 
WT/COMTD/N/53 had been  made, a nd how to comply with the RTA TM.     
56. The representative of the United States  expressed appreciation to Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, 
Chile and Uruguay for the indication that replies were being prepared to his delegation's question s, 
and also welcomed the comments by the European Union and Canada. He requested that 
document WT/COMTD/N/53, as well as his delegation's questions on the document , be mai ntained 
on the agenda. He additionally requested that the Secretariat take note of the questions and 
concerns that Members had raised with respect to the document, and stressed the importance of 
ensuring that notifications to the CTD were consistent with n otifications made in other WTO 
bodies.   
57. The Committee took note  of the interventions made.  WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 11 - 
 
  (C) Status of the preparation of factual present ations – Report by the Chairman 
(WT/COMTD/W/23 3)   
58. The Chairman  said that his report on the status of the preparation of factual presentations , 
circulated in document WT/COMTD/W/233 , contained eighteen separate entries relating to the 
status of factual presentations to be finalized. In some cases, the full set of data  had not been 
submitted, while in other cases not all comments on the draft factual presentations ha d been 
received.  He urged all the parties to these agreements to provide  to the Secretariat the required 
data and information  as soon as possible. He also i nformed Members 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 on ly 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.  
59. He went on to say that he  wished to make a few observations  about  the three RTAs which 
had been  notified under both the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV , and which had been 
referenced on the CTD's agenda for many years. As he had indicated at the informal, open -ended 
meeting on 21 March 2018, he believed that it wa s important to keep track of where things stood 
with regard to the preparation of the factual presentations on these three RTAs in the context of 
the CTD. This was why his report included entries relating to the ASEAN -Korea and India -Korea 
agreements. Howe ver, the GCC Customs Union  was not referenced in his report because, as he 
had informed the Committee at the informal , open-ended meeting  held on 21 March 2018 , the 
factual presentation on this agreement had already been circulated. In particular, the fact ual 
presentation was circulated on 21 March with the CTD d ocument symbol WT/COMTD/RTA/9/1 , and 
the CRTA document symbol WT/REG276/1. He added that , in his discussion with the CRTA 
Chairman that he had referred to earlier , issues relating to the RTAs notifi ed under both provisions 
were touched upon . This was one area where both Chairs believed that they should maintain close 
contact. In closing, he encouraged continued engagement among Members in order to find a way 
forward in the CTD with regard to the issu es relating to the RTAs notified under both the Enabling 
Clause and GATT Article XXIV . 
60. The representative of the United States  believed that it was useful for Members to have the 
Chairman's report circulated as a Committee document in advance of the meeting. He expressed 
his delegation's continued concern s about the delays in the preparation of factual presentations , 
and urged M embers to provide the required data or comments to the Secretariat. He highlighted in 
particular his interest in receiving an  update on the India -Nepal agreement and also noted, in 
response  to the earlier intervention by South Africa, that the deadline for the submission of data 
on the MERCOSUR -SACU agreement had already passed.  
61. The Committee took note  of the Chairman's report , and of the interventions made.       
- Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Notification of Customs Union  – Communication from 
China, Egypt and India (WT/COMTD/W/175)  
62. The representative of India indicated that his intervention related not only to the present 
sub-item, but also to the two following sub-items . He noted that the systemic concerns 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 remained unaddressed. He recalled that, on 19 November 2007, the GCC Customs Union  
was notified t o the CTD under the Enabling Clause. This notification was discussed in  the CTD 
under " Other Business " at the 69th, 70th, 71st, and 72nd Sessions held respectively in May, July, 
October and December 2008. Since the 73rd Session held i n March 2009, the notification of the 
GCC Customs Union had been discussed under the agenda i tem "Notification s under the Enabling 
Clause". The sub -item concerning the GCC Customs Union notification was introduced at the 
request of a developed Member , over concerns that the notification had been made exclusively on 
the basis of the Enabling Clause. Some developed Members did not favour moving forward with 
the process of reviewing the GCC  Customs Union in the CTD until there was further clarification on  
the legal justification for such a procedure. The GCC  Customs Union was later notified to the CRTA 
under GATT Article XXIV  on 6 October 2009 . WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 12 - 
 
  63. He went on to say that the CTD had not as yet rea ched a consensus on the issue of the 
notification and consideration of the GCC  Customs Union – notwithstanding  the justifications 
provided in support of the notification made under the Enabling Clause, and despite the assertion 
by the CTD Chairperson in October 2008  that the GCC  Customs Union was scheduled for factual 
consideration at a CTD dedicated session. Instead, the subsequent notification under 
GATT  Article  XXIV was deemed by some developed Member s as the legal premise for examining 
this RTA in the CRTA. Some developing Members had rais ed systemic concerns over the legal and 
procedural implications of the dual notification of the GCC  Customs Union to both the CTD and the 
CRTA, and the undertaking to refer the agreement to the CRTA. These systemic concerns impinged 
upon the mandate and th e terms of reference the CTD , as we ll as on the Enabling Clause, the RTA 
TM, and the rights and obligations of Members in a manner that extended  to the realm of 
strengthening the multilateral trading system  (MTS)  and its development dimension as highlighte d 
by the Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference . In closing, he requested that the three sub -items 
remain on the agenda until the systemic and specific concerns arising out of the "dually notified " 
RTAs were addressed.  
64. The representative of China  expressed sup port for the intervention by India. He said that the 
systemic and specific concerns relating to dual notifications were laid out in document  
WT/COMTD/W/175 , and requested that the  present  sub-item be maintained o n the agenda.  
65.   The representative of Egypt  indicated his support for the interventions by India and China, 
and requested that the present sub-item remain on the agenda.  
66. The representative of  the European Union  said that her intervention related to the present 
sub-item, as well as to the two follow ing sub-items . With regard to the GCC Customs Union , her 
delegation  noted with appreciation that the factual presentation and the Secretariat's general 
incidence  calculation  had been circulated , and that a fax had been sent to Members announcing 
that a review would take place in the CRTA. Turning to the ASEAN -Korea and India -Korea 
agreements, she said that it was important to clarify the legal and procedural questions arising 
from agreements being notified by each party under different legal provisions . With respect to the 
ASEAN -Korea agreement, she regretted that no  progress had been made , and encouraged the 
parties to make additional effort s in this regard. She noted that this situation had prevented t he 
Committee from reviewing the goods aspects of t he agreement, whereas the services aspects had 
already been discussed in the CRTA. She also regret ted that no progress had been made regarding 
the India-Korea agreement, and again encouraged the parties to make additional effort s to find a 
solution.   
67.  The representative of the United States  said that the GCC Customs Union notification 
concerned a customs union, and this made this particular notification diffe rent from  non-customs 
union RTA  notifications . With regard to document  WT/COMTD/W/175, he noted that his delegation 
had not found any specific issues relat ing to the notification of the GCC Customs Union . The 
co-sponsors of the document appeared to be seeking a discussion of a systemic nature  on RTAs, 
which was outside the scope of the CTD. Any systemic discussion on the rules for RTAs  needed to 
take place in the CRTA .   
68. The Committee took note  of all interventions.   
- Notification of  the Agreement on Trade in Goods  between the Association of Southeast 
Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Korea  
69. The representative of the United States  welcomed the inclusion of this sub -item on the 
agenda, and noted that a correct listing  would need to include the document symbol  
WT/COMTD/N/33, which was the ASEAN member countries' notification of 6 July 2010 . Although 
this notification should have initiated the review process set out in Section C of the RTA TM  – 
thereby  provid ing transparency regarding the preferential treatment extended by the  parties  – the 
review process had not been initiated, because some of the parties had still not submitted the 
required  data to the Secretariat. Referring to the RTA TM, he noted that data needed to be made 
available within 10 weeks  – or 20 weeks in the case of RTAs involving only developing countries  – 
after the date of notification of the agreement. However, i n the case of the ASEAN -Korea 
agreement, a lmost eight years had passed  since the notification . It was his understanding that 
data remained outstanding from Cambodia, the Philippines and Viet Nam. He urge d these parties WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 13 - 
 
  to provide the necessary data to the Secretariat without any further delay. H e also observed that 
Lao PDR , which  was a member of ASEAN,  had not been identified as a party to the ASEAN -Korea 
agreement in the notification  of 6 July 2010 . In this regard, h e requested clarif ication as to 
whether Lao PDR was a party to th e agreement  – and if so, whether it would submit a notification, 
and subsequently the necessary data to the Secretariat. Finally, he noted that some Members had 
raised questions regarding the venue for the mandated review of the ASEAN -Korea agreement. 
While it was important to reach a consensus on a path forward for the review, his delegation did 
not believe that the question of venue should be a reason for Members to avoid fulfil ling their 
obligations under the RTA TM.  
70. The representative of Korea  said that issues relating to dual notifications of RTAs had 
appeared on the CTD's agenda for several years, and that his delegation had engaged in 
discussions with interested Members, and with CTD Chairs, with a view to resolving the matter. He 
indicated  that Korea had duly notified its RTAs – and in particular the ASEAN -Korea and 
India-Korea agreements – in accordance with GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V, and in 
compliance with the RTA TM. While the Enabling Clause was designed to allow developing Me mbers 
to accord differential and more favourable treatment  in tariffs  to each other, he was unsure 
whether the ASEAN -Korea and India -Korea agreements fell into this category. In this regard, he 
expressed some doubt on having  separate consideration s of the two agreements  in the CRTA and 
in the CTD , but indicated that his delegation was open to the possibility of handling the matter in a 
joint meeting of the two bodies.  
71. The Committee took note  of all interventions.   
- Notification of the Comprehensive Econo mic Partnership Agreement between India 
and Korea (Goods)  
72. The representative of the United States  welcomed the inclusion of this sub-item on the CTD 
agenda as a reminder of the outstanding data that was due for the preparation of the factual 
presentation  on the India-Korea agreement. He said that his delegation would revert to this 
sub-item at the next meetin g with a more detailed statement , in which it would ask India for an 
update regarding  the status of provision  of the required data , which was about eight years 
overdue.  
73. The representative of India indicated that his intervention related not only to the present 
sub-item, but also to the previous two sub -items.  Referring to elements of document 
WT/COMTD/W/175 , he noted that it had been argued that the n on-adoption or prescription of 
criteria or conditions for the elimination of non -tariff measures (NTMs) did not exclude customs 
unions providing for the elimination of non -tariff measures from the coverage of the Enabling 
Clause, nor should this impair developing Members' rights in taking such actions within their RTAs . 
In this regard, h e shared  his delegation's view  that customs union among developing countries 
could be notified under the Enabling Clause , and that the Enabling Clause covered more than j ust 
tariffs . He believed that Members needed to consider the legal and procedural implications of 
notifying the GCC Customs Union  on the basis of the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV, 
without either notification being withdrawn. Members also needed to  consider the role of the CTD 
and the CRTA in reviewing  an RTA notified under both provisions. He additionally pointed to the 
question of how the CTD should deal in the future with RTAs between developing Members that 
were notified under the Enabling Claus e, insofar as this related to the fulfilment of paragraphs 1 
and 4 of the CTD's TORs. Another issue was 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 behalf of all the parties to the RTA under another legal 
provision. Furthermore, the implications arising from Members retaining a notification under the 
Enabling Clause – but not conducting a factual consideration of the RTA  in the CTD – needed to be 
addressed, as did the question of how this would figure specifically in the case of the GCC Customs 
Union , where a factual review had been scheduled.    
74. The Committee took note  of all interventions .   WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 14 - 
 
  E. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE TRANSPARENCY MECHANI SM FOR PREFERENTIAL 
TRADE ARRANGEMENTS  
- Implementation of the Transparency Mechanism for Preferential Trade Arrangements  
– Status on the Committee's Work  
-  Status of the preparation of factual presentations – Report by the Chairman 
(WT/COMTD/W/23 4)   
75. The Chairman  said that  he had circulated a report, contained in document 
WT/COMTD/ W/234, on the status of the preparation of factual presentations on PTAs. In 
summarizing the information 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 the Secretariat had still not received 
the fu ll set of data or information re quired for the preparation of the factual presentations. These 
were the PTAs being implemented by China, India, the Russian Federation, Chinese Taipei and 
Thailand. In addition to statistical data that was missing, it was his understanding that, for at lea st 
some of these PTAs, up -to-date regulations in an official WTO language had not been notified to 
the CTD, as was required under the PTA TM . Without these regulations, the Secretariat would not 
be in a position to complete the factual presentations – even if the statistical data were submitted. 
He therefore urged the notifying Members to provide all the required data and information as soon 
as possible. In closing, he said that this was the first time that the CTD Chairperson's report on the 
status of PTA factual presentations had been circulated as a Committee document. He recalled that 
he had indicated at the informal, open -ended meeting of the CTD's Regular Session on 
21 March  2018 that he would proceed in this manner, as he believed this would be useful  for 
Members.    
76. The representative of the European Union  regretted that some Members had not as yet been 
able to provide the required data and information for the preparation of the factual presentations. 
She indicated that her delegation would welcome upd ates from these Members in this regard, 
including in the context of any difficulties they were facing.  
77. The representative of the United States  called on the Members implementing the PTAs 
mentioned in the Chairman's report to provide the required data and i nformation in order to allow 
the Secretariat to complete the factual presentations. She observed that, for some of these PTAs, 
the data was overdue by more than six years . This diminished transparency for all Members.  
78.  The representative of the Russian Fe deration  indicated that his delegation  was working to 
submit the necessary data and information to the Secretariat.  
79.   The representative of South Africa  said that she had taken note of the observation by the 
United States under agenda item D that the deadline for the provision of data in the context of the 
MERCOSUR -SACU agreement had passed. She informed the Committee  that South Africa  had 
already provided the required data  to the Secretariat , and would work with the other SACU parties 
to ensure that t he outstanding data was submitted .  
80.  The Committee took note  of the Chairman's  report , and of the interventions.  
F. REVIEW OF THE STEPS TAKEN TO PROVIDE DUT Y-FREE AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET 
ACCESS TO LEAST DEVE LOPED COUNTRIES  
81. 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 
provided information  on the steps they were taking, or had already taken, to provide DFQF m arket 
access to LDCs. Written communications by some Members had also been considered.   
82. The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group, emphasized the importanc e of 
DFQF market access for the integration of LDCs into the MTS, as well as for their growth and 
development. T he LDC Group appreciated  the efforts of those developed Members t hat were 
provid ing DFQF market access on all of their tariff lines  – or on at least  97% of their tariff lines , 
pursuant  to the Hong Kong DFQF Decision  – as well as the  efforts of developing Members in this WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 15 - 
 
  regard . However, he noted that DFQF implementation had not led to  the significant impact  on LDC 
exports  that had been hoped for . Certain Members whose markets were of fundamental 
importance to L DC exports had yet to provide duty -free access on at least 97% of their tariff lines . 
Furthermore,  in some cases , the remaining 3% of tariff lines subject to duties often included 
products of export interest to LDCs  – for example,  textiles , clothing and  certain agricultural and  
industrial products . According to the Secretariat Note contained in document 
WT/COMTD/LDC/W /65/Rev.1 , the average applied tariffs by developed Members  in 2015  on textile 
and clothing  products  from LDCs were  3.2% and 6.5% , respectively.  He also noted the 
infrastructural constraints that LDCs had to deal with in their efforts to export their products . While 
stressing the importance to LDCs of enhanced DFQF market access, he also called for an in -depth 
analysis of the problems faced  by LDCs . He believed in particular that an examination of the 
utilization of preferences at the tariff line level would help to determine where to focus discussions 
in order to help increase  LDC exports. In this regard, he recalled that the LDC Group had 
submitted a proposal in 2 016, contained in document WT/COMTD/W/218/Rev.1, for a clinical 
examination of DFQF implementation. Some Members had been reluctant at the time to agree to 
the draft TORs for the proposed study. He stressed that the proposal aimed simply  for the 
preparatio n of a technical study  by the Secretariat,  in order to allow an understanding of what was 
preventing LDCs from taking fuller advantage of the preferences granted, and to come up with the 
best possible responses . He expressed his hope that Members could agree to the proposal . 
83. The representative of Bangladesh  expressed support  for the intervention by Chad . He noted 
that, while the objective laid out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was to doubl e 
the LDCs' share of  global exports by 2020 , the LDCs' share had actually decreased  in recent years . 
He urged Members to agree to the draft TORs submitted by the LDC Group for a clinical 
examination of DFQF implementation . He a lso expressed disappointment  that, at a recent meeting 
of the Committee on R ules of Origin, delegations  had not provided updates on the steps taken to 
implement the Nairobi Decision  on preferential rules of origin for LDCs . He called on Members to 
consider  the spirit of the Hong Kong and Bali DFQF Decisions, as well as the Nairobi  Decision on 
preferential rules of origin, and to faithfully implement  these Decisions  in order to help LDCs 
increase their share of global exports . 
84. The representative of the European Union  recalled  that the European Union provided DFQF 
market access for all products from LDCs, except for arms and ammunition . She encouraged other 
Members , including emerging economies , to endeavour to provide better market access to LDCs.  
85. The Committee took note of all interventions.  
G. WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  
- Ministerial Decision of 13 December 2017  (WT/M IN(17)65 – WT/L/1032) – Statement 
by the Chairman  
86. The Chairman  drew Members' attention to the Ministerial Decision concerning the WTO's 
Work Programme on E-Commerce  adopted  at the Eleventh Ministerial Conference  (MC11) . This 
Decision, of 13 December 2017, was contained in documents WT/MIN(17)/65 and WT/L/1032. He 
highlighted that the Decision called, inter alia , for a continuation of the work under the Work 
Programme on E-Commerce , based on the existing mandate, with an endeavour to reinvigorate 
the work. In this context, he recalled that the CTD was one of the four s ubsidiary bodies of the 
General Council that was mandated to implement the Work Programme on E-Commerce . On the 
basis of the MC11 Decision , he invited Members to consider possible ways forward for the CTD in 
the e-commerce  area, and to share any ideas with  the Committee.  He also indicated that, as per 
the MC11 Decision, the General Council would hold periodic reviews on the Work Programme on 
E-Commerce , based on reports submitted by the relevant WTO bodies. The next review would take 
place at the July 2018 session of the General Council.    
87. The representative of Chinese Taipei  welcomed the decision taken at MC11 to continue the 
work on e -commerce. His delegation stood ready to contribute to this work , and to help build a 
more inclusive and fair MTS. He indicated that he wished to introduce two submissions by his 
delegation , circulated in February 2018 in documents JOB/DEV/53 and JOB/DEV/54 . With regard 
to the first submission, he said that e -commerce provided a unique opportunity  for m icro, small 
and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to reach out and engage in the global market . However , WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 16 - 
 
  cyberspace trade barriers (CTBs) – which were interventions by governments in the cross -border 
transmission of information by electronic means  – had a restrictive effect o n international trade. 
His delegation 's view was that the CTB issue deserved greater atte ntion, since overcoming the 
digital d ivide and CTBs were key preconditions for MSMEs to connect online and access potential 
local and foreign buyers.  He went on to say  that the second submission contained his delegation's 
observations on the 3D printing revolution and the sharing economy. He noted that the rapid 
advent of 3D printing and demander -supplier matching services were creating new kinds of 
e-commerce  manufacturing and trading patterns, which often by -passed traditional border 
controls. He suggested that Members should consider  these issues , in order to address possible 
asymmetric regulatory treatment. In closing, he indicated that h is delegation was w illing to share 
more in -depth analysis in the e -commerce area, and to join in capacity -building efforts. He 
expressed hope that the two submissions from his delegation would help to clarify important 
dimensions of e-commerce , and facilitate discussions on e-commerce, development and 
capacity -building in the WTO.  
88. The representative of Bangladesh  suggested that a dedicated session of the CTD could be 
held in May 2018 to discuss e-commerce , for which the Secretariat could prepare a background 
paper on the key  elements relating to the CTD under the Work Programme on E-Commerce . He 
also proposed that the second submission introduced by Chinese Taipei could form part of the 
discussion, particularly with regard to the revenue implications of e -commerce. He hoped  that the 
Committee could agree  at the present meeting to hold a dedicated session .   
89. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation was supportive of 
discussions in the e -commerce  area. With regard to the suggestion from Bangladesh, she  
requested that a written proposal be submitted in order to allow her delegation to give it due  
consider ation.  
90. The representative of China  said that he had taken  note of the two submissions  introduced 
by Chinese Taipei . He also referred  Members to the statement on the Work Programme on 
E-Commerce  delivered  by his delegation  at the CTS meeting held on 2 March 2018 .  
91. The representative of Bangladesh , in response to the intervention by the European Union, 
said that he did not see the need t o submit a written proposal on his suggestion for a dedicated 
session on e-commerce  to be held . He explained that the elements of his suggestion – including 
the proposal  for a Secretariat background paper , and the idea to address parts of the submission 
by Chinese Taipei – were already contained in the Work Programme on E-Commerce . He called for 
a discussion on substance rather than on procedure. Holding a dedicated session on e-commerce 
would allow the Committee to provide a substantive report to the General Council  at its July 2018 
meeting .  
92.  The representative of the European Union  explained  that she would need a written proposal 
from Bangladesh in order to be able to consult with her colleagues working in the e -commerce 
area. 
93. The representative 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 the 
economy. However, the growth of e-commerce  activities had given birth to new challenges, both 
for domestic and cross -border trade. These challenges  were well highlighted at the E-Commerce  
Week organized by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on 
16-20 April 2018, and included issues relating to consumer protection, the sale of counterfeit 
goods and services, the safety of online payments, e -authentication procedure s and digital 
signatures, taxation, as well as other challenges relating to shortages of skilled manpower, human 
resource development and logistics. As rules on these issues were still evolving in most developing 
countries, his delegation believed that it was premature to discuss rule -making on e-commerce  at 
the WTO. Instead, discussions on e-commerce  should be expl oratory and confined to the 
non-negotiating mandate of the Work Programme on E-Commerce , as agreed by Ministers at 
MC11 . The bodies mandated to implement the Work Programme on E-Commerce  had highlighted a 
number of technical issues within the scope of the relevant WTO Agreements which required 
deliberation . He also shared the view that a distinction needed to  be made between the gains from 
e-comme rce, and the likely benefits of rule -making on e-commerce. With regard to work that 
could be undertaken in the CTD, he pointed to the elements laid out in paragraph 5.1 of the Work WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Programme on E-Commerce , and stressed that discussions on e-commerce  in the  CTD needed to  
focus on how to address the development needs of developing countries. A critical component of 
this discussion should be on how to ensure an adequate transfer of technology , given that the 
growth of digital trade and e-commerce was technology -dependent.  
94.  The representative of the United States  request ed Bangladesh to submit a written proposal 
regarding the suggestion to hold a dedicated session on e -commerce. She explained that this 
would allow her to consult with her capital.  
95.  The r epresentative of Bangladesh  indicated that his proposal was in line with the mandate 
of the CTD under the Work Programme on E-Commerce . He explained that he wished to avoid 
procedural matters , and focus on substance . The proposed dedicated session on e-commerce  
would allow a substantive discussion to take place, and would provide input for the report to the 
General Council on the work of the CTD in this are a.  
96. The representative of Canada  said that, like others, she wished to request a written proposal 
from Bangladesh, as this would allow her to consult with her colleagues working on e -commerce . 
97. The Chairman  noted that some ideas on possible work for the CTD in the e -commerce area 
had been shared, and some Members had requested additional information. He  proposed that the 
Committee take note of all interventions, and that the present item be maintained on the agenda 
for the next meeting.          
98. It was so agreed .   
H. OTHER BUSINESS  
99. The representative of Japan  said that  Members had shown a growing interest since MC11 to 
have broader and fundamental discussions on trade and development. Discussions in this regard  
had already been held  at the mini -Ministerial meeting held in New Delhi in March 2018, and some 
informal exchanges were currently taking place in Ge neva. His delegation saw  value in continuing 
free and frank dialogue  on the subject , and therefore wished to make its own contribution to 
facilitate th e process  by organizing a Member -driven activity. Details of th e format and content of 
the activity we re still under reflection, although the preliminary feeling was that a workshop or 
seminar would be useful, with the participation of external experts such as  academics . His 
delegation had been consul ting informally with some Members about the possibility of holding such 
an activity, possibly before the summer break, and looked forward to hearing the view s of the 
wider membership. Japan  remained  open to continue discuss ing this matter with any interested 
delegation.  
100.  The representative of South Africa , on b ehalf of the African Group, referred to the discussion 
that had taken place on the Aid-for-Trade Work Programme  at the CTD's reconvened 42nd session 
on Aid for Trade , held on 23 April 2018. In particular, she recalled that the Group had requested 
some more time before it would be in  a position to inform Members on whether or not it could 
agree to relinquish its position on having a  footnote in the current version of the draft  
Aid-for-Trade  Work Programme  – contained  in document JOB/DEV/52/Rev.3. Sh e observed in this 
regard that the document w as the result of an intensive process, in the context of which even a 
reference to industrial policy  had been  rejected. Notwithstanding Africa’s long -term development 
objectives for industriali zation and structu ral transformation, in the spirit of cooperation the Group  
had indicated that it was  willing to forego a number of important issues critical to those objectives , 
in order to move forward with the Aid-for-Trade  Work Programme . She also recalled that t he 
Group had submitted written comments that were substantive in nature, and which  intended to 
improve and st rengthen the Aid-for-Trade  Initiative . As recipients of Aid for Trade , the member  
countries of the African Group believed that they were in a position to identify ways to rea lize the 
objectives of the Aid-for-Trade Initiative . The comments had been  provided in that spirit, and she 
therefore did not  agree with the assertion that the African Group had politici zed th e Aid-for-Trade 
Initiative . She also expressed regret that the Aid-for-Trade  Task Force  recommendations adopted 
by the Genera l Council on 10 October 2006 in document WT/GC/M/104 were now being called into 
question. She observed  that it was the se recommendations that gave life and fo rm to the 
Aid-for-Trade Initiative , the Global Review of Aid -for-Trade  and the Aid-for-Trade  Work WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Programmes . In closing, she indicated that the Group was still considering how it intended to 
proceed with the issue of the footnote , and would inform the Cha irman of its decision shortly .     
101.  The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group, said that no feedback had been 
received from members of the Group calling into question the third revision of the draft 
Aid-for-Trade Work Programme , as contained in  document JOB/DEV/52/Rev.3 . He believed that 
improvements had been made in the current text  relative to earlier ones , which emphasiz ed the 
importance of industrialization, structural transformation and the development of infrastructure 
and skills. The current text was therefore acceptable to the LDC Group, even though certain 
members of the Group had wished  to see further improvements. The text provided a strong basis 
for moving forward with the aim of fulfilling the mandate  of the Aid-for-Trade  Initiative , which was 
to help developing countries, and especially L DCs, to strengthen their supply -side capacit y and 
trade -related infrastructure in order to increase exports. He expressed his appreciation for the 
Chairman 's efforts to work towards reach ing a consensus  on the Aid-for-Trade Work Programme .   
102.  The Chairman  said that he wished to take the opportunity to summarize  the current status 
of the draft Aid-for-Trade Work Programme , and inform Members how he intended to proceed. He 
recalled that, a t the CTD's reconvened 42nd Session on Aid for Trade  on 23 April 2018 , a textual 
amendment was agreed to, in the form of the deletion of the word  "and" in p aragraph 1.3. 
However , there remained some  outstanding work to do, notably with respect to p aragraph 3.2. 
Overall, he believed that significant progress had been achieved  on the text , and some Members 
had expressed their satisfaction with the changes made between the second and third revision s of 
the document. However, others ha d noted that there existed  a limit to their flexibility. He recalled 
that he had posed the question to Members as to whether document JOB/DEV/52/Rev .3 would be 
the final draft text under his chairmanship, or whether it would a final text that would be 
submit ted to the General Council. On this matter, it appeared that the document was to be the 
final draft under his chairmanship. In order t o capture the progress made  so far , and to facilitate 
the work of the incoming Chair man, he indicated that the document would now be issued in all of 
the official WTO languages . He clarified that the document  remained a draft , and that the task of 
arriving at a final Aid-for-Trade  Work Programme  would now fall to the incoming Chairman. In 
closing, he observed that, at no point during the various consultat ions on this text, had he heard 
any Member questioning the utility of having an Aid-for-Trade  Work Programme, or  expressing a 
desire to discontinue the work on the Aid-for-Trade I nitiative .  
103.  The Committee took note  of all interventions . 
I. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE S UB-COMMITTEE ON LEAST D EVELOPED 
COUNTRIES  
104.  The Chairman  said that , on the basis of consultations , he wished to put forward the name of 
Ambassador Monique  T.G. V an Daalen of the Netherlands to serve for another year as the 
Chairperson of the Sub -Committee on LDCs.  
105.  The Committee elected  Ambassador Monique T.G. V an Daalen as the Chair person  of the 
Sub-Committee on LDCs for 2018.  
J. ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON OF THE COMMI TTEE ON TRADE AND DE VELOPMENT  
106.  The Committee was informed that , at the General Council meeting of 7 March 2018, the 
names of the Chairpersons for 2018 had been announced, including that of Ambassador Diego 
Aulestia of Ecuador as Chairman of the CTD. The Committee was invited to formally elect 
Ambassador Aulestia . 
107.  The C ommittee elected  Ambassador Aulestia  as the Chairman of the CTD for 201 8. 
108.  The Chairman  observed  that the relationship between trade and development was at the 
heart of the MTS, and that t here was a wide consensus that trade should benefit the well -being of  
citizens. A s the focal point for the consideration and coordination of work on development in the 
WTO, the CTD played  an important role in that regard.  He also noted that the relationship between 
trade and development was recognized in the Hava na Charter. Finally, h e expressed appreciation WT/COMTD/M/105  
 
- 19 - 
 
  to the outgoing Chairman, Ambassador Taonga Mushayavanhu , and a ssured Members of his 
intention to work closely with them on the various areas of the CTD's work.  
109.  Several delegations took the floor to welcome the Chairman, and  to express appreciation for 
the work of the outgoing Chairman. Interventions in this regard were made by the representatives 
of India, Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group, South Africa , on behalf of the African Group,  the 
European Union  and China. 
K. DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
110.  The Chairman  said that this was a new item that had been requested on the CTD's agenda. 
He believed that it was useful for planning purposes to have an idea of when the next CTD meeting 
would be held. All efforts would be made to stick to the date that was announced, although 
circumstances might sometimes require some modifications, which would be duly conveyed to 
Membe rs. He went on to say that the next meeting was tentatively sc heduled to be held on 
5 July 2018. An initial agenda would be circulated fou r weeks before the meeting, on 7 June 2018, 
as per the CTD's rules of procedure. After the circulation of this initial meeting notice, Members 
would still have the opportunity to r equest items on the agenda for the meeting. The agenda 
would close on 22 June 2018, and would be circulated on 25 June 2018.   
111.  The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________