RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/M/72 
17 February 2009 
 (09-0803) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Seventy-Second Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 3 DECEMBER 2008 
 
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Shree B.C. Servansing (Mauritius) 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................2  
B. OBSERVERS ............................................................................................................................... ...2 
(i) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers ...............................................................................2  
(ii) Further consideration of the requests for observer status by the League of Arab 
States, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Gulf 
Organization for Industrial Consulting, the Organisation Internationale de la 
Francophonie, the Common Fund for Commodities, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) and th e Groupe de la Banque Africaine de 
Développement.................................................................................................................. ..........2
 
C. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE .........................................................................3  
- COMMUNICATION FROM BRAZIL ON THE REVISED GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF 
PREFERENCES SCHEME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/COMTD/57/ADD.1 ) ..................3  
- COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA ON THE REVISED GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF 
PREFERENCES SCHEME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/COMTD/57/ADD.2 ) ..................3  
- COMMUNICATION FROM INDIA ON THE REVISED GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES SCHEME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
(WT/COMTD/57/ADD.3 ) ..................3  
- COMMUNICATION FROM PAKISTAN ON THE REVISED GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF 
PREFERENCES SCHEME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/COMTD/57/ADD.4 ) ..................3  
- COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 
SUBMITTED BY BRAZIL , CHINA , INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON THE REVISED GENERALIZED 
SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES SCHEME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
(WT/COMTD/57/ADD.5 )..............................................................................................................3  
- COMMUNICATIONS FROM BRAZIL ON THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES SCHEME OF NORWAY 
(WT/COMTD/65  AND WT/COMTD/65/ADD.2 ) ..........................................5  
- COMMUNICATIONS FROM NORWAY – RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY 
BRAZIL ON THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES SCHEME OF NORWAY 
(WT/COMTD/65/ADD.1  AND WT/COMTD/65/ADD.3 ) .................................................................5  
- PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES TRADE AGREEMENT (PICTA ) (WT/COMTD/N/29 ) ...........................5  
- GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES – NOTIFICATION BY THE UNITED STATES 
(WT/COMTD/N/1/ADD.6 )............................................................................................................7  
D. DECLINING TERMS OF TRADE FOR PRIMARY COMMODITIES , AND ITS IMPLICATION TO 
TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT OF PRIMARY COMMODITY EXPORTING COUNTRIES ........................8  
E. DECISION ON TRANSPARENCY FOR PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS (WT/L/672 ) ...........9  WT/COMTD/M/72 
Page 2  
 
  F.
 ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTA TION OF THE HONG KONG DECISION ON DUTY -
FREE AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET ACCESS FOR LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES ........................10  
- COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (WT/COMTD/W/149/ADD.5 ) .............................10  
G. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND TRAINING ................................................................................11  
- BIENNIAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING PLAN – STATUS OF 
IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAMME FOR 2009:  INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARIAT ...........11  
H. DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT 2008  (WT/COMTD/W/16 7) .................................................................12  
I. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................12  
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairman  said that the draft agenda for the 72nd Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (CTD) was contained in document WTO/AIR/3279/Rev.1 issued on 
27 November 2008.  He recalled that the Committee ha d agreed at its last meeting to revert to the 
matter concerning the change in the notification status of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) 
Customs Union from Articl e XXIV of GATT 1994 to the Enabling Clause.  He said that this matter 
would be treated under "Other Business".  
2. The agenda was adopted  as amended. 
B. OBSERVERS  
(i) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers 
3. 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 included 
the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), the Common Fund for Commodities (CFC), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), th e Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), the 
Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation, th e Islamic Development Bank (IDB), the African 
Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the South Centre, the Pacific Islands 
Forum, the United Nations Environment Progra mme (UNEP), the West African Economic and 
Monetary Union (WAEMU) and the World Intellectua l Property Organization (WIPO).  He said that, 
following the decision taken at the previous meeti ng of the Committee, the organizations had been 
invited to the present meeting.  He proposed that the organizations be invited to the next formal 
meeting of the CTD. 
4. It was so agreed
. 
(ii) Further consideration of the requests for observer status by the League of Arab States, the 
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting, the Organisation Int ernationale 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 
5. The Chairman
 said that at previous meetings, the Committee had had before it a number of 
requests for observer status.  He said that if there was no change in positions to extend observer status 
to any of those applicants, then the Committee would take note and would revert to those requests at 
the next meeting.    WT/COMTD/M/72 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. It was so agreed . 
C. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  
- COMMUNICATION FROM BRAZIL ON THE REVISED GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF 
PREFERENCES SCHEME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/COMTD/57/ADD.1 ) 
- COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA ON THE REVISED GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF 
PREFERENCES SCHEME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/COMTD/57/ADD.2 ) 
- COMMUNICATION FROM INDIA ON THE REVISED GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF 
PREFERENCES SCHEME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/COMTD/57/ADD.3 ) 
- COMMUNICATION FROM PAKISTAN ON TH E REVISED GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF 
PREFERENCES SCHEME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/COMTD/57/ADD.4 ) 
- COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 
SUBMITTED BY BRAZIL , CHINA , INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON THE REVISED GENERALIZED 
SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES SCHEME OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
(WT/COMTD/57/ADD.5 ) 
7. The Chairman  recalled that the EC had notified its revised Generalized System of Preferences 
(GSP) scheme at the 57th Session of the CTD.  Communications raising questions on the EC's revised 
GSP scheme had been received from Brazil, China, India and Pakistan and were circulated in documents WT/COMTD/57/Add.1 to Add.4, respectivel y.  The EC's responses to the questions were 
circulated in document WT/COMTD/57/Add.5.  It had been agreed at the last  CTD meeting that this 
item would remain on the agenda for the present mee ting.  He noted that the current GSP scheme of 
the EC would expire on 31 December 2008, and that the CTD was working towards establishing a 
Transparency Mechanism for Preferential Trade Arrangem ents (PTAs).  In this light, he proposed that 
the item be taken off the CTD's agenda.  
8. The representative of Pakistan
 said that he had been directed by his capital to request that the  
item remain on the CTD's agenda.  He explained th at his delegation had still not received satisfactory 
responses to the questions that it had posed to the EC.  In addition, the EC's new GSP scheme – which 
would enter into force on 1 January 2009 – did not differ fundamentally from the one that would 
shortly be expiring.  That being said, his delegati on was willing to engage bilaterally with the EC to 
try to find a solution before the next CTD meeting. 
9. The representative of India  said that the responses provided by the EC had not fully addressed 
India's questions.  His delegation had, therefore,  sought follow-up clarifications relating to the 
transparency and objectivity of the EC's GSP scheme.   These were conveyed to the EC in July 2008, 
prior to the 70th Session of the CTD.  While the EC's atte ntion had been once again drawn to these 
follow-up queries at the 71st Session of the CTD, India had still not received any responses.  He noted 
that the EC's new GSP scheme would enter into force on 1 January 2009, and therefore wondered how 
relevant these responses would be, if they were ev er received.  Given that the current GSP scheme 
would expire at the end of 2008, he indicated that India would not insist on maintaining this item on 
the CTD's agenda.  
10. The representative of Brazil  said that more than two years had elapsed since the CTD had 
begun discussing the current version of the EC's G SP scheme, which was due to expire at the end 
of 2008.  Brazil regretted that, throughout this pe riod, the EC had not responded in full to all the 
questions that had been posed, nor had it provided the requested trade statistics in their entirety.  
Rather, the EC had limited itself to providing partial information, declaring that the rest could only be WT/COMTD/M/72 
Page 4  
 
  provided on a bilateral basis.  He additionally ob served that the EC, in an apparent attempt to 
unilaterally put an end to the matter, had on sever al occasions declared that the discussions were 
exhausted, and that there was no further reas on to maintain this item on the CTD's agenda. 
11. He informed the Committee that Brazil had receive d trade statistics from the EC regarding its 
GSP scheme.  These had, however, been provided on a bilateral basis, and had not been made publicly 
available.  He also noted that the EC seemed to have a rather restrictive understanding of the concept 
of "bilateral basis", in particular since the statis tics provided referred to trade with Brazil only.  He 
added that his delegation had experienced diffi culties accessing information that was publicly 
available through the Eurostat system.  Moreover, for countries benefiting from more than one of the 
EC's preferential schemes, the Eurostat system did not seem to provide disaggregated trade flows by 
individual scheme.  This made it impossible in certain cases to obtain the exact figures concerning 
trade under the GSP scheme, and prevented WTO Members from having a full understanding of the scheme, its rules and its application.  His delega tion did not understand why information that could 
easily be made available was treated in such a secre tive manner.  In light of the fact that many WTO 
Members sponsoring similar schemes did not seem to  have problems sharing relevant information 
about their preferential trade, this attitude from the EC was incomprehensible, and not in keeping with 
the EC's numerous statements in support of transparency.  
12. He observed that a preferential trade arrangement such as the GSP might be seen by many as 
a "giveth and taketh away" programme, in the sense that Members sponsoring such schemes may, at 
any time, modify or withdraw the preferences granted.  It was, however, an indisputable fact that the 
rules set out in the Enabling Clause, which had been  further clarified by decisions of the Dispute 
Settlement Body of the WTO, imposed limitations  on this prerogative, mainly for the purposes of 
non-discrimination and the balanced treatment of r ecipients.  The existence of these parameters 
reinforced even further the need fo r an adequate and constant flow of freely accessible information.  It 
was, therefore, time that a satisfactory level of tr ansparency was guaranteed not only in form, but also 
in substance, thereby giving meaning to the re levant provisions of the Enabling Clause and the 
GATT 1994.  
13. Noting that the present meeting would be the CT D's last before the expiry of the current 
version of the EC's GSP scheme, he said that Brazi l expected that all the information that had been 
requested of the EC – including trade statistics – would be provided as soon as possible for the whole period of application of the scheme.  While reservi ng the right to come back to this matter in the 
future as appropriate, his delega tion did not find it necessary to maintain this item on the CTD's 
agenda.  Brazil sincerely hoped that the new GSP sch eme of the EC, which would enter into force on 
1 January 2009 and would hopefully be notified without delay, woul d represent the beginning of a 
new era of openness and effective respect for Members' rights in every regard.   
14. The representative of the European Communities
 supported the Chairman's proposal that the 
present item be taken off the CTD's agenda.  On the i ssue of data provision, he said that, according to 
his understanding, 2007 data had been  provided by his delegation.  Th e EC would continue to provide 
import data on a bilateral basis at the written request of any Member, when the data become available.  
In this regard, he reminded Members that the EC was a customs union of 27 member States, and that the time required to put together the relevant data for a given year might therefore be longer than for 
individual countries.  With regard to the points rai sed by Brazil on the Eurostat system, he confirmed 
that the data from this source did not distinguish between the different preferential schemes of the EC.  
However, there was no intention to be secretive with data.  The EC's view had always been that the 
impact of preferences was best assessed when all preferential schemes were considered together, 
thereby avoiding misinterpretations about trade fl ows under an individual scheme.  He also observed 
that, in his view, the intervention by Brazil went  in some instances beyond the substance of the 
discussion on the EC's notification.  He concluded by saying that efforts would be made by the EC to  WT/COMTD/M/72 
 Page 5 
 
 
  notify its new GSP scheme in the spirit of what was currently on the table in the draft proposal on a 
Transparency Mechanism for PTAs.  
15. The representative of Brazil  said that paragraph 4 of the Enabling Clause required that a 
Member taking action to introduce a preferential scheme should notify other Members and furnish 
them with all the information they may deem appropria te relating to such action.   He added that, in his 
delegation's view, it was very important that any Member notifying a preferential scheme should 
provide import data relating to that particular preferential scheme.   
16. The Chairman  said that, in light of Pakistan's request , this item would need to remain on the 
CTD's agenda for the next meeting.   
17. The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation did not see the 
utility of keeping this item on the CTD's agenda, and wished to see it removed. 
18. The representative of Pakistan  said that his instructions were to request that the item remain 
on the CTD's agenda, at least until the next meeting of the Committee. 
19. The Chairman  noted that Pakistan would be engaging b ilaterally with the EC on this matter.  
He said that he would also consult informally w ith Pakistan.  The item would remain on the agenda 
for the next CTD meeting.   
20. It was so agreed . 
- COMMUNICATIONS FROM BRAZIL ON THE GE NERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES 
SCHEME OF NORWAY (WT/COMTD/65  AND  WT/COMTD/65/ADD.2 ) 
- COMMUNICATIONS FROM NORWAY – RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY 
BRAZIL ON THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF  PREFERENCES SCHEME OF NORWAY 
(WT/COMTD/65/ADD.1  AND WT/COMTD/65/ADD.3 ) 
21. The Chairman  recalled that Norway had made a notification at the 69th Session of the CTD 
concerning its GSP scheme.  Two sets of questions from Brazil on the scheme had been circulated in 
documents WT/COMTD/65 and WT/COMTD/65/Add.2.  Responses to Brazil's questions were circulated by Norway in documents WT/COMTD/65/Add.1 and Add.3.  It had been agreed at the last 
CTD meeting that this item would remain on the agenda for the present meeting. 
22. The representative of Brazil
 thanked Norway for the constructive exchange of information 
that had taken place with his delegation since the last  meeting of the CTD.  The bilateral dialogue had 
allowed a better understanding of Norway's GSP sche me and its rules.  However, some points still 
needed clarification and further discussion, incl uding by means of having access to documentation 
pending translation.  Brazil looked forward to  receiving the remaining information as soon as 
possible. 
23. The Chairman  said that this item would remain on the agenda for the CTD's next meeting.   
24. It was so agreed . 
- PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES TRADE AGREEMENT (PICTA ) (WT/COMTD/N/29 ) 
25. The Chairman  said that the PICTA notification – by Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon 
Islands and Tonga – had been circulated in doc ument WT/COMTD/N/29.  He invited one of the 
notifying Members to introduce the notification. WT/COMTD/M/72 
Page 6  
 
  26. The representative of Tonga
, also on behalf of Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, 
said that PICTA was a free-trade agreement among P acific Island States that were members of the 
Pacific Islands Forum.  Of these Forum Island Countries (FICs), four – Fiji, Papua New Guinea, 
Solomon Islands and Tonga – were WTO Members and two – Vanuatu and Samoa – were in the 
process of accession to the WTO.  Although Australia and New Zealand were members of the Pacific 
Islands Forum, they were not pa rt of PICTA.  The Agreement – which was signed in August 2001 and 
entered into force in 2003 – had three categories of member states, namely the small island states, the least-developed countries (LDCs) and the developing  countries.  After a slow initial implementation 
of the Agreement, Trade Ministers of the Pacifi c segment of the African, Caribbean and Pacific 
(ACP) countries had agreed in 2006 that PICTA shou ld be made operational by 2007.  Six member 
states were currently trading under the Agreement.  Four had completed their notification 
requirements but had yet to complete domestic legi slative processes, while one had signed and ratified 
the Agreement but had not complete d its notification requirements.  
27. The objectives of PICTA, as contained in Article  2 of the Agreement, were to strengthen, 
expand and diversify trade between the Parties;   promote and facilitate  this expansion and 
diversification through the elimina tion of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade between the Parties in a 
gradual and progressive manner, under an agreed ti metable and with minimum disruption;  develop 
trade between the Parties under conditions of fair competition;  promote and facilitate commercial, 
industrial, agricultural and technical cooperation be tween the Parties;  further the development and 
use of the resources of the Pacific Region with a view to the eventual creation of a single regional market among the Pacific Island economies in acco rdance with the respective social and economic 
objectives of the Parties, including the advancemen t of indigenous peoples;  and contribute to the 
harmonious development and expansion of world tr ade in goods and services and to the progressive 
removal of barriers to it. 
28. He added that these objectives encapsulated the aspirations of the PICTA members.  It was 
their hope that freer trade amongst the FICs, as a r esult of PICTA, would en courage specialization and 
greater efficiency in their economies.  It was also hoped that the resulting increase in trade amongst 
PICTA members would reflect enhanced efficiency and improved consumer welfare – leading to the 
overall creation of jobs – and that the establishmen t of a regional market would encourage increased 
investment in the FICs.  He explained in this re gard that many FICs, because of their small domestic 
markets, struggled to attract investment.  The oppor tunity to reach the regional market of six million 
people, at zero tariff rates, could encourage more  investment flows.  He  recognized, however, that 
challenges relating to logistics and supply-side constr aints had to be overcome before optimal benefits 
could be realized.  PICTA was viewed by the FICs  as a stepping stone towards their more complete 
integration into the internationa l economy.  Through the Agreement,  it was envisaged that businesses 
would become used to the idea of outside competiti on.  In addition, some governments would have to 
commence implementing needed reforms in preparati on for more extensive trade liberalization in the 
future. 
29. PICTA provided for the progressive phasing out of tariffs on trade among the FICs and the 
gradual establishment of a free-trade area, with th e understanding that small island states and LDCs 
would be integrated with different structures a nd different time-frames.  There were, therefore, 
different schedules for developing countries, small is land states and LDCs.  In addition, there were 
separate schedules for the reduction and elimination of ad valorem  tariffs and specific or fixed tariffs.  
Table 1 of Annex II of the Agreement contained th e tariff reduction schedule for developing member 
states' ad valorem  tariffs, while Table 3 contained the sche dule for the reduction and elimination of 
their specific tariffs or fixed tariffs.  Tables 2 and 4 contained the same information for small island 
states and LDCs.  Trade barriers other than tariffs had to be eliminated immediately upon entry into 
force of the Agreement.  WT/COMTD/M/72 
 Page 7 
 
 
  30. The Agreement covered all trade in goods betw een its member states, though trade in alcohol 
and tobacco products were exempted for at least tw o years, after which a decision would be taken on 
their status.  In order to qualify for preferential entry,  goods needed to comply with the rules of origin 
as referred to in Article 5 and Annex I of the Agre ement, which were based on a 40 per cent local 
content requirement.  The Agreement also provided for a list of exceptions, ensuring that the Parties 
could continue to restrict trade for the range of  reasons generally allowe d in international trade 
agreements.  Annex III contained member states' lis ts of excepted imports, while Annex IV contained 
the timetable for the elimination of tariffs on excep ted imports.  Although trade in services, capital or 
labour movement were not covered, one of the stat ed long-term objectives of the Agreement was the 
creation of a single market amongst the FICs.  This w ould entail extending, in stages, the coverage to 
include trade in services, as well as the movement  of capital and labour.  The coverage would be 
extended either through an amendment of the main text, or through the addition of a specific protocol.  
Amendments could only be made with the Agreement of all the Parties, while a protocol would only 
be binding on those who signed it.  Either way, ther efore, the Parties would retain complete control as 
to their involvement in future extensions. 
31. He also noted that there had b een various amendments to PICTA.  Of significance were the 
amendments to the tariff reduction schedules.  He expl ained in this regard that a revised timetable had 
been agreed to by Ministers in December 2006, whereby tariff reductions by FICs, other than small island states and LDCs, would begin in 2007 and be completed by 2015 for non-excepted imports, 
and by 2020 for excepted imports.  Tariff reductions  by small island states and LDCs, which would 
begin in 2009, were to be completed by 2017 for non-excepted imports, and by 2021 for excepted 
imports.  The Pacific leaders in their meeting in August 2008 had called on Parties that were yet to 
announce readiness to trade under PICTA, to do so by 2 009.  In this regard, the leaders had tasked the 
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat to work together  with the Parties to put in place time-bound action 
plans. 
32. The representative of the United States
 recognized that regional trade agreements could, and 
should, be complementary to multilateral trade liberal ization.  As the US had made clear on numerous 
occasions, however, this complementarity could be ac hieved only where such agreements fell within 
the parameters of WTO rules.  The US, therefore, noted its concern that consideration was taking place of the notification of yet another regional trade agreement (RTA) that sought to discriminate against WTO Members by granting preferential market access to non-WTO Members. 
33. The Committee took note
 of the PICTA notification, and of all interventions. 
- GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES – NOTIFICATION BY THE UNITED STATES  
(WT/COMTD/N/1/ADD.6 )  
34. The Chairman  said that the notification by the US concerning its GSP scheme was circulated 
in document WT/COMTD/N/1/Add.6.  He invite d the US representative to introduce the 
communication.  
35. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation was pleased to have the 
opportunity to present its notification concer ning the 2007 Annual Review of the US GSP 
programme, which had been completed in July 2008.  Efforts to foster the further integration of 
developing countries into the multilateral trading system  were a vital part of US trade policy.  US 
efforts spanned a number of fronts, including pr omoting broad-based multilateral trade reforms 
conducive to further integration, supporting integration of trade stra tegies into the development plans 
of national authorities, and providing significant amounts of capacity-building assistance.  A 
long-standing element in US efforts to increase deve loping country participation in the global trading 
system was the provision of duty-free access for products from beneficiary developing countries WT/COMTD/M/72 
Page 8  
 
  entering the US market.  The US GSP programme, in  operation since 1975, was a cornerstone of this 
effort.   
36. As stated in the notification, the programme  had been extended through 31 December 2009.  
The notification also provided information on th e designation of the Republic of Serbia and the 
Republic of Montenegro each as a beneficiary developing country for purposes of the GSP 
programme, and of the Solomon Islands as a least-de veloped beneficiary developing country.  It also 
noted that the US had terminated the designation of  Trinidad and Tobago as a beneficiary developing 
country – effective 1 January 2010 – after concl uding that the latter had become a "high income" 
country as defined by the official statistics of  the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development.  Currently, the US GSP programme pr ovided preferential duty-free treatment for nearly 
5,000 products from the 132  desi gnated beneficiary countries and terr itories.  Duty-free benefits were 
the only preferential tariff treatment provided unde r the GSP programme, as the statute did not allow 
for less than full tariff reduction.  A single, transpar ent rules of origin regime governed all US imports 
under the GSP.  
37. In the 2007 Annual Review, the US had designate d certain additional products as eligible for 
duty-free treatment, as outlined in Annex I of the no tification.  Additionally, the US had granted 
waivers to the statutory "competitive need limitations " to ensure continued GSP duty-free benefits for 
certain products.  These were outlined in Annex II  and Annex III of the notification.  Annexes IV 
and V of the notification identified those specific products from specific beneficiary countries for which GSP eligibility was terminated or revoked b ased on a determination that imports from those 
beneficiary countries could compete effectively in th e US market.  The notification also provided the 
publicly accessible website where the results of th e 2007 GSP Annual Review could be viewed.  She 
concluded by saying that while her delegation r ecognized the successes of the US GSP programme – 
which covered nearly US$31 billion in imports in  2007 – it was also committed to continue working 
to improve the effectiveness of US efforts to inte grate developing countries more fully into the global 
trading system.  
38. The Committee took note
 of the notification by the US.  
D. DECLINING TERMS OF TRADE FOR PRIMARY COMMODITIES , AND ITS IMPLICATION TO TRADE 
AND DEVELOPMENT OF PRIMARY COMMODITY EXPORTING COUNTRIES  
39. The Chairman  recalled that it had been agreed at the last CTD meeting that he would continue 
his consultations with Members as to how commodities could henceforth be treated in the Committee.  
He said that, under this agenda item, the Committee had heard presentations from several 
international organizations working on commod ity issues.  These included the Common Fund for 
Commodities, the Food and Agriculture Organi zation (FAO), the International Trade Centre 
UNCTAD/WTO (ITC), the International Coffee Organi zation, the International Cocoa Organization 
and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).  The CTD had also heard from Nestlé, a private sector organization.  He be lieved that these presentations had been useful in 
allowing the Committee to gain a better apprec iation of the commodities-related work being 
undertaken by these organizations.  
40. Based on his consultations with Members – in particular in the African Group – as to how 
commodities could henceforth be treated in th e CTD, he proposed that the item relating to 
commodities need not appear on the agenda of all meetings of the Committee.  Rather, the 
commodities item could be placed on the agenda of any particular CTD meeting, at the request of any 
Member.  The Committee could also revert to the commodities item at any particular CTD meeting, 
should it be decided to invite one or more relevant international organizations – notably among those 
that had participated in previous CTD meeti ngs – to present any new commodities-related work.  WT/COMTD/M/72 
 Page 9 
 
 
  41. It was so agreed .   
E. DECISION ON TRANSPARENCY FOR PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS (WT/L/672 ) 
42. The Chairman  said that the 14 December 2006 Gene ral Council Decision on "Transparency 
for Preferential Trade Arrangements" – contai ned in document WT/L/672 – invited the CTD to 
consider transparency for preferential arrangement s under paragraph 2 of the Enabling Clause – other 
than RTAs – and report back within six months fo r appropriate action by th e General Council.  The 
Council had since extended the deadlin e to its December 2008 meeting. 
43. He recalled that the proponents of a Transparen cy Mechanism for PTAs – Brazil, China, India 
and the US – had presented their draft proposal, circulated in document JOB(08)/103, at the last CTD meeting in October 2008.  He ha d hoped to be in a position to ca ll an informal, open-ended CTD 
meeting soon after to consider the draft proposal in some detail, and to subsequently have it 
considered by the Committee at the present formal  session.  To that end, after the October CTD 
meeting, he had continued with his small-group informal consultations to try to iron out as many 
outstanding issues as possible.  He had held a number of rounds of inform al consultations in the 
small-group format, and believed th at important progress had been made.  That being said, there 
remained some issues to be settled.  Furthermore, given that this was the last CTD meeting of 2008, 
he would not be able to convene an informal, open-ended CTD meeting this year.  While he was 
optimistic that Members would be able to sort out the outstanding issues, it was clear that more time 
would be required before this could be achieved.  He inquired whether any Member wished to take 
the floor. 
44. The representative of Brazil
 expressed regret that, almost two years after the General Council 
Decision, it had not yet been possible for the CTD to fulfil its mandate.  Throughout this period, the 
proponents had made every effort to present a balanced proposal that would represent a real 
achievement in transparency for PTAs, taking into  account the specific nature of the preferences 
granted and the schemes that supported them.  In dr afting the proposal, the aim of the proponents had 
been to guarantee an appropriate level of transparency for beneficiaries of preferential treatment, as 
well as for the broader WTO membership, while at the same time avoiding disproportionate burdens 
on notifying Members.  One further objective of  the proposal was to design procedures for the 
notification of relevant information in a periodical  and predictable manner.  This would avoid the 
need for ad hoc requests in the CTD for informa tion regarding particular schemes.  While Brazil 
strongly supported all forms of transparency, and not only for PTAs, his delegation believed that the 
draft proposal stood on its own merits and should not depend on any other processes.  In this regard, 
his delegation was confident that, when the time was ripe, the General Council would approve this 
and other initiatives.  He recognized the need fo r further work on this matter, and informed the 
Committee that the proponents stood ready to discuss any aspects of the proposal. 
45. The representative of India  joined Brazil in expressing regret that, after two years of 
painstaking discussion, the CTD had not been able to  fulfil the mandate from th e General Council.  At 
the same time, his delegation recognized that progress had been made, in particular given that several 
rounds of informal consultations had led to the ci rculation of the proponents' draft proposal.  He 
agreed with the Chairman's assessment that more time would be needed before the CTD could come 
to a decision on this matter.  He expressed his delegation's hope that this would be the last 
time-extension that the Chairman would be seeking from the General Council. 
46. The representative of the United States  shared the sentiments expressed by Brazil and India 
and reiterated the proponents' interest in furt her facilitating transparency for PTAs.  The US 
appreciated the interest expressed by other Members on this matter and their active participation in the 
informal consultations.  Her delegation looked forw ard to continuing the work in advancing the 
Transparency Mechanism to ward a positive outcome.   WT/COMTD/M/72 
Page 10  
 
  47. The representative of China
 said that his delegation shared the disappointment of the other 
proponents that Members had not been able to reac h a consensus on this issue.  At the same time, 
China was encouraged by the progr ess that had been made in the informal consultations.  He noted 
that the Chair would need to request a time-extensio n for the CTD to consider this matter.  China was 
ready to work with Members to allow the CT D to complete its task as soon as possible.  
48. The Chairman  said that he would need to report to the General Council at its December 2008 
meeting on the status of the CTD's consideration of this matter.  He said that he would inform the 
Council of the progress that had been made sinc e July 2008, and would essentially provide the 
Council with the same information that he had been providing to the Committee.  He proposed to also 
ask the Council to grant the CTD additional time – until July 2009 – to consider the matter and report 
back for appropriate action.  He said that he w ould continue to work informally with Members 
starting from early 2009, and would open the matter  up for discussion once again at the next formal 
meeting of the CTD.  The item would, therefore, remain on the CTD's agenda. 
49. It was so agreed . 
F. ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HONG KONG DECISION ON DUTY -FREE 
AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET ACCESS FOR LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  
- COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (WT/COMTD/W/149/ADD.5 ) 
50. The Chairman  said that an item concerning the Hong Kong Decision on duty-free and 
quota-free (DFQF) market access for LDCs had been on the CTD's agenda for its earlier meetings in 
2008.  At the present meeting, the CTD was to  undertake its third annual review of the 
implementation of the Hong Kong Decision, as mand ated in Annex F of the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration.  Under this agenda item, a communi cation had been received from the US, and had been 
circulated in document WT/COMTD/W/149/Add.5.  He invited the US representative to introduce 
this communication. 
51. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation, which had a long-standing 
commitment to transparency, was pleased to provid e this notification outlining the steps being taken 
by the US to provide DFQF ma rket access to LDCs.  She stressed  that the US remained fully 
committed to implementing the DFQF Decision on the terms agreed to at the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference, together with the results of an ag reement on the overall negotiations under the Doha 
Development Agenda (DDA).  Successful completion of the DDA was, therefore, a prerequisite for 
the US' implementation of the DFQF initiative.  The US was also fully committed to implementing 
the Decision in a manner that would result in meaningful market opportunities for LDC products.   
52. While the US already provided extensive duty -free treatment to the products of LDCs, new 
statutory authority would be needed to grant the benefits laid out in the Hong Kong Decision.  The 
steps required for the US to devel op the necessary legislation were ou tlined in the notification.  The 
US would continue its internal consultation pr ocess to implement the Decision, along with its 
commitment to achieving an ambitious result in the DDA negotiations.  Backed by the results of 
several studies, her delegation strongly believed th at the best result for all developing countries – 
including the LDCs – was an ambitious package th at would open new markets.  As such, the Doha 
Round was a single undertaking for a good reason, since the best package could be achieved when all contributions were tied together .  Her delegation looked forward to seeing renewed energy in the 
coming days to follow through on the politi cal commitments made by Asia-Pacific Economic 
Cooperation (APEC), G-20 and LDC leaders.  It was hoped that these political commitments would 
be translated into real showings of flexibility a nd contributions, leading to a modalities package that 
would ensure that the negotiations ultimately yielded meaningful new trade flows and economic 
opportunity.  WT/COMTD/M/72 
 Page 11 
 
 
  53. The representative of Bangladesh  expressed concern on the amount of time that the US was 
taking to complete its internal procedures to implement the Hong Kong D ecision.  He wondered 
whether the US would take a similar approach in  implementing the results of the DDA negotiations.  
He also referred to paragraph 4 of the communi cation from the US, which stated that the US was 
continuing to evaluate the effect on current pr eference programmes of implementing the Hong Kong 
Decision.  He said in this regard that, accordi ng to the Hong Kong mandate, such an evaluation should 
not apply to the 97 per cent of products on which th e LDCs should be granted DFQF market access.  
Rather, an evaluation of this natu re should only apply to the remaining 3 per cent, on which DFQF 
market access was to be provided to LDCs on a progressive basis.  It was a concern to his delegation that such evaluation studies were being conducted wh en the LDCs still did not have a commitment of 
97 per cent DFQF access into the US market.   
54. The representative of the European Communities
 observed that, three years after the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, the US was still continuing its internal procedures to implement 
the DFQF Decision.  He also expressed regret that the US had elected to defer implementation of the Decision until it implemented the results of the Doha Round.  Noting the concentration of LDC 
exports on a relatively limited number of tariff lin es, he inquired whether the US was aiming to 
provide DFQF market access for all products at the start of the implementation period, or whether it 
would start with a 97 per cent product coverage.  If the latter option was retained, the EC was 
interested to learn whether the US had a time-fr ame in mind for incrementally building on the initial 
97 per cent, in particular in view of the stated aim of offering meaningful market access to LDCs.   
55. The Committee took note
 of the communication from the US, and of all interventions. 
G. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND TRAINING  
- BIENNIAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING PLAN – STATUS OF 
IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAMME FOR 2009:  INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARIAT  
56. The Director of the Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation (ITTC)  said that he 
wished to provide some preliminary information on the WTO's technical assistance (TA) activities in 
2008.  A detailed report on these activities would be circ ulated to Members in the early part of 2009, 
and would subsequently be considered by the CT D.  He said that the projected total number of 
activities for 2008 was 485 – slightly more than in 2007, but around the same number as in 2006.  Of these activities, 227 were national TA activities, 159 we re regional or global activities, and 99 related 
to conferences.  A large part of the activities – 32 per cent – had been held in Africa, which was the 
most important beneficiary region.  He welcomed th e fact that 50 per cent of the activities concerned 
specialized and advanced training, which indicated an  evolution in the nature of the TA provided by 
the WTO.  Training concerning non-agricultural market access (NAMA) was the most demanded 
among the specialized and advanced activities (17 pe r cent of the total), followed by Trade-Related 
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Services (10 per cent each).   
57. With regard to the planning of activities for 2009, he said that the Secretariat had sent a 
communication to Members asking them to submit their 2009 TA requests.  Based on the responses 
that had been received thus far, a programme of  national activities was being put together.  The 
Secretariat was also beginning its planning of the va rious regional activities that would be held.  In 
this context, he referred specifically to the thr ee-month regional trade policy courses (RTPCs).  He 
explained that the intention was for these courses to be of an intermediate nature, while the 
Geneva-based courses would be more specialized.  This approach would be conducive to achieving a 
higher level of learning through progressivity, while leading to stronger coherence in WTO training 
activities.  A training path with three levels had been  identified.  The initial le vel would be covered by 
an e-training introductory course.  This would be followed by the RTPC as an intermediate-level 
activity, and by an advanced trade policy course at a higher level of learning.  Four RTPCs were WT/COMTD/M/72 
Page 12  
 
  expected to be held in 2009, for English-speaki ng Africa, French-speaking Africa, Asia and the 
Pacific and Latin America.  In addition, a Conso lidation Course would be or ganized for the Caribbean 
countries and two, four-week preparatory courses for an RTPC would be organized for the Arab and 
Middle East countries, and for the Central and Eastern European and Central Asian Countries (CEECACs).   
58. The Committee took note
 of the intervention by the ITTC Director.   
H. DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT 2008  (WT/COMTD/W/167 ) 
59. The Chairman  said that the CTD's draft annual report for 2008 was contained in document 
WT/COMTD/W/167.  The document contained the annua l reports of the CTD in Regular Session, the 
CTD's Dedicated Sessions on Regional Trade Agre ements and Small Economies, the Sub-Committee 
on LDCs, as well as the CTD's report of its work on Aid for Trade.  He observed that there were a 
number of square brackets in the draft report re lating to items under consideration at the present 
meeting, as well as at the 18th Dedicated Session on Small Economies.  As part of the process of 
adopting the report, the square brackets would be removed, and the discussion that took place at the 
present meeting would be appropriately reflected in the report.  He informed  the Committee that the 
report, when adopted, would be forwarded to the General Council for its meeting of 
18 December 2008.  He opened the floor for any comments on the draft report. 
60. The representative of the European Communities  referred to footnote 6 in the section 
concerning notifications of market access for devel oping countries and LDCs.  He proposed that this 
footnote be placed as a paragraph in the main text of the section. 
61. The representative of Tanzania  observed that paragraph 10, which concerned commodities, 
was rather brief.  He inquired whether this paragraph could incl ude more information on the CTD's 
consideration of commodity issues in 2008.  
62. The Chairman  said that the suggested amendments to the draft report would be incorporated 
in the CTD's final report.  He proposed that th e Committee adopt the report with these amendments. 
63. The Committee adopted  its annual report for 2008.1  
I. OTHER BUSINESS  
64. The Chairman  recalled that it had been agreed at the last CTD meeting that the Committee 
would revert to the matter concerning the change in  the notification status of the GCC Customs Union 
from Article XXIV of GATT 1994 to the Enabling Clau se.  Further to the earlier communication on 
this matter by the GCC countries, he informed Member s that, after the last CTD meeting, the US and 
the EC had circulated communications in documents  WT/COMTD/66/Add.1 and Add.2, respectively.  
He understood that the GCC countries also had a fu rther communication, which was available at the 
back of the meeting room.2 
65. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation c ontinued to have concerns 
about the change in the notification of the GCC Cu stoms Union to be exclus ively under the Enabling 
Clause.  The US did not support moving forward w ith the process of reviewing the agreement under 
the Transparency Mechanism for RT As until clarification had been obtained from the GCC countries.  
                                                      
1 The report was issued as document WT/COMTD/69. 
2 The communication from the GCC countries was subsequently circulated as document 
WT/COMTD/66/Add.3.  WT/COMTD/M/72 
 Page 13 
 
 
  She noted that this matter was also under ac tive discussion in the Committee on Regional Trade 
Agreements (CRTA), and indicated her delegation's willingness to continue discussions in that body. 
66. The representative of Canada  said that his delegation shared th e concerns that had been raised 
by the US.  For the Enabling Clause to apply to an agreement covering non-tariff measures, Members 
needed to establish the criteria and conditions appli cable to the elimination of these measures.  Such 
criteria and conditions had not been established, thus precluding the use of the Enabling Clause for an 
agreement going beyond tariff reduction or elimination.   Canada also supported the argument that, in 
order for the GCC countries to apply their common external tariff above their WTO bindings, their agreement needed to be consistent with GATT Artic le XXIV, and would therefore need to be notified 
under that Article.  Canada encouraged the GCC c ountries to reconsider their proposed change in 
notification status, and to submit their notification under GATT Article XXIV.   
67. The representative of the European Communities
 drew Members' attention to the written 
comments that had been circulated by his delegation on the change in the notification status of the GCC Customs Union.  He also referred to the comme nts made by his delegation at the last meeting of 
the CRTA, where the EC had pointed to the limitati ons of the Enabling Clause and to the need to 
continue discussion on this matter in the CRTA.  His delegation looked forward to further discussion 
at the next CRTA meeting. 
68. The representative of Australia
 associated her delegation with the interventions by the US, 
Canada and the EC.  Australia looked forward to fu rther discussion on this matter in the CRTA.  On a 
procedural note, she said that she wished to reite rate her delegation's view  that, as a general rule, 
Members should not seek to change the forum for reviewing a notification.  When Members found it 
necessary to change the forum, compelling reasons needed to be provided. 
69. The representative of Japan  supported the interventions by the US, Canada, the EC and 
Australia.  His delegation was keen to continue discussion on this matter in order to find a solution 
which all Members could feel comfortable with. 
70. The representative of Brazil  reaffirmed his delegation's in terest in continuing discussion on 
this matter, in whatever form was considered appropr iate.  He noted that the discussion was of interest 
to his delegation not only in the specific context of  the GCC Customs Union, but also in a broader 
systemic sense.  On a procedural note, he urged delegations interested in  promoting substantive 
debate on this matter to do so by means of intr oducing an agenda item in accordance with rules 3 
and 25 of the rules of procedure of the General Council.    
71. The representative of Kuwait , on behalf of the GCC countries, said that the new 
communication from the GCC responded to the earlier  communications circulated by the US and the 
EC in documents WT/COMTD/66/Add.1 and Add.2, respectively.  While the written responses were 
self-explanatory, he said that he wished to highlight a few points.  He noted firstly that the GCC Customs Union had now been notified under the Enab ling Clause, and that it should be examined by 
the CTD.  The GCC countries remained concerned by the continued insistence of some Members that 
the agreement should be examined by the CRTA under GATT Article XXIV.  There was no legal 
foundation for such a request.  As noted in the GCC communication, WTO Members had agreed that 
agreements entered into under Article 2(c) of the Enabling Clause should be notified to the CTD, and 
not to the CRTA.  He drew Members' attenti on to the 14 December 2006 General Council Decision 
on a Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) – contained in document WT/L/671 – which  stated clearly that the CRTA would examine RTAs falling under GATT 
Article XXIV, while the CTD would do so for RT As falling under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling 
Clause.  The Transparency Mechanism defined RTAs as "trade agreements of a mutually preferential 
nature", which clearly encompassed the GCC Cust oms Union.  Thus, as a matter of principle, 
agreements entered into under Article 2(c) of the Enabling Clause should be examined by the CTD.   WT/COMTD/M/72 
Page 14  
 
  72. He recalled that Article 2(c) of the Enabling Clause referred to regional or global 
arrangements entered into by developing countries fo r the mutual reduction or elimination of tariffs 
and, in accordance with criteria or conditions wh ich may be prescribed by WTO Members, for the 
mutual reduction or elimination of non-tariff meas ures, on products imported from one another.  In 
other words, in order to qualify under Article 2( c), a customs union or other agreement needed to 
provide for the mutual reduction or elimination of ta riffs and, in accordance with criteria or conditions 
prescribed by WTO Members, for the mutual reduction or elimination of non-tariff measures.  He remarked that the GCC Customs Union did both, give n in particular that Article 1 of the agreement 
provided for the elimination of all tariffs and non-ta riff barriers.  Since neither the GATT Contracting 
Parties nor WTO Members had ever prescribed criter ia or conditions for the reduction or elimination 
of non-tariff measures, this elemen t of paragraph 2(c) was simply inapplicable.  The GCC Customs 
Union thus fell squarely under the Enabling Clause. 
73. He said that the GCC had responded to the EC's assertion that the Enabling Clause could not 
be invoked to justify the reduction or elimination of non-tariff measures on a preferential basis.  He 
noted in particular that neither of the two aut horities cited by the EC supported this position.  The 
GATT Panel Report in US – Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil dealt with developed country 
preferences under paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause, and was thus irrelevant in the present context.  Furthermore, the WTO Secretariat's Legal Note on RTAs under the Enabling Clause – 
contained in document WT/COMTD/W/114 – stated  expressly that it was an open question as to 
whether RTAs under the Enabling Clause could introduce discrimination on non-tariff measures.  The GCC had also responded to the US' arguments about the scope of the Enabling Clause.  As had been 
observed in the GCC's communication, the Legal Note by the WTO Secretariat stated that the 
Enabling Clause could be viewed as lex specialis  within WTO law.  Therefore, compliance with the 
provisions of the Enabling Clause would suffice to authorize RTAs among developing countries – otherwise inconsistent with GATT Article I – even  if the requirements of Article XXIV were not 
totally satisfied.  As for the Article II issue raised by the US, he said that it was simply irrelevant to 
the question of where a customs union among developing countries should be notified.  The 
Transparency Mechanism was determ inative in this regard. In conclusion, he said that the GCC 
countries considered that continued debate on such  narrow procedural issues was unproductive.  It 
was hoped that Members would not need to return to  this matter at future CTD meetings.  He also 
expressed support for the intervention by Brazil. 
74. The Chairman
 noted that discussions on the GCC Customs Union notification were also 
taking place in the CRTA.  In the light of the inte rventions at the present meeting, he said that the 
CTD would need to revert to this matter at its ne xt meeting.  While the matter could be raised once 
again under "Other Business", he remarked that ther e were limits to the substance of the discussion 
that could take place under "Other Business".  In this  connection, he drew the attention of Members to 
the intervention by Brazil.   
75. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________