RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
30 January 2006 
 (06-0404) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Thirteenth Dedicated Session  
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETIN G OF 16 NOVEMBER 2005 
 
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Gomi Tharaka Senadhira (Sri Lanka) 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................................1  
B. COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA , BARBADOS , CUBA, DOMINICA , 
FIJI, GRENADA , JAMAICA , MAURITIUS , PAPUA NEW GUINEA , SOLOMON ISLANDS , 
ST. KITTS AND NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "AGREEMENT 
ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE : DESIGNATION OF A REGIONAL BODY" 
(WT/COMTD/SE/W/15) ............................................................................................................2  
C. COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA , BARBADOS , CUBA, DOMINICA , 
FIJI, GRENADA , JAMAICA , MAURITIUS , PAPUA NEW GUINEA , SOLOMON ISLANDS , 
ST. KITTS AND NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "AGREEMENT 
ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES :  
DESIGNATION OF A REGIONAL BODY" (WT/COMTD/SE/W/16)...............................................2  
D. COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA , BARBADOS , CUBA, DOMINICA , 
FIJI, GRENADA , JAMAICA , MAURITIUS , PAPUA NEW GUINEA , SOLOMON ISLANDS , 
ST. KITTS AND NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "ACCESSION 
TO THE WTO"  (WT/COMTD/SE/W/17) ....................................................................................7  
E. COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA , BARBADOS , CUBA, DOMINICA , 
FIJI, GRENADA , JAMAICA , MAURITIUS , PAPUA NEW GUINEA , SOLOMON ISLANDS , 
ST. KITTS AND NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "TRADE 
RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AGREEMENT :  DESIGNATION OF A 
REGIONAL BODY" (WT/COMTD/SE/W/18) ..............................................................................2  
F. DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT IN DEDICATED 
SESSION TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL (WT/COMTD/SE/W/19) ...............................................11  
 
  A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairman  recalled that the draft agenda for the meeting was contained in 
Airgram WTO/AIR/2713 issued on 3 November 2005. 
2. The agenda was adopted . 
3. The Chairman  noted that the papers dealing with the Agreements on Technical Barriers to 
Trade (TBT), Sanitary and Phyto sanitary measures (SPS) and Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual 
Property Rights (TRIPs) – which had been circul ated in documents WT/C OMTD/SE/W/15, 16 and 18 
- contained similar proposals.  Therefore, he suggest ed discussing these three papers at the same time.  
Thus, agenda items B, C and E would be discussed  together and then the Dedicated Session would WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
Page 2  
 
  discuss item D concerning the paper on Accessi on to the WTO circulated in document 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/17.  
4. It was so agreed
.  
B. COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA , BARBADOS , CUBA, DOMINICA , FIJI, 
GRENADA , JAMAICA , MAURITIUS , PAPUA NEW GUINEA , SOLOMON ISLANDS , ST. KITTS AND 
NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL 
BARRIERS TO TRADE : DESIGNATION OF A REGIONAL BODY" (WT/COMTD/SE/W/15) 
C. COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA , BARBADOS , CUBA, DOMINICA , FIJI, 
GRENADA , JAMAICA , MAURITIUS , PAPUA NEW GUINEA , SOLOMON ISLANDS , ST. KITTS AND 
NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "AGREEMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF 
SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES :  DESIGNATION OF A REGIONAL BODY" 
(WT/COMTD/SE/W/16) 
E. COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA , BARBADOS , CUBA, DOMINICA , FIJI, 
GRENADA , JAMAICA , MAURITIUS , PAPUA NEW GUINEA , SOLOMON ISLANDS , ST. KITTS AND 
NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "TRADE RELATED INTELLECTUAL 
PROPERTY RIGHTS AGREEMENT :  DESIGNATION OF A REGIONAL BODY" 
(WT/COMTD/SE/W/18) 
5. The Chairman  asked if any of the delegations which had co-sponsored 
documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/15, 16 and 18 would li ke to take the floor to introduce the 
submissions to the Dedicated Session. 
6. The representative of Barbados  made a general statement, wh ich is reproduced below.   
Intervention by Barbados :  
 
"Since we last met on 17 October at the CTD Dedicated Session, the small economies 
have been engaged on a number of diffe rent fronts.  The concurrence by the 
membership as to the validity and viability of the two-track approach has afforded us 
a more clear and linear structure from which we have approached our continued work 
under the Dedicated Session.  As Members will recall the two-track process allows 
for both the tabling of specific negotiating proposals in the negotiating and other bodies of this house;  the tabling of proposals of a general nature for discussion and decision in the CTD as appropriate;  and the monitoring by the CTD of proposals tabled in the negotiating and other bodies.  A report on the progress of these different 
tracts was tabled in WT/COMTD/SE/W/14 on 17 October and included the 
following:  the reference to and attachment  of the NAMA and Agriculture proposals; 
mention of a Fisheries Subsidies proposal which was tabled by some of the small economies; four proposals of an administra tive nature dealing with TBT, SPS, TRIPS 
and Accession tabled by some small economies. 
The reaction to W/14 was positive and for that we express thanks to all Members.  
The four administrative proposals are on the agenda today and we anticipate that they 
will also be discussed with a view to findi ng solutions to the issues raised therein. 
Consistent with this approach, in the l ast week, two negotiating proposals have been 
tabled by some of the small econo mies in the NAMA and the Agriculture 
negotiations.  In NAMA document TN/MA/W/66 entitled "Treatment of small 
vulnerable economies in the NAMA negotia tions" was tabled and preliminarily  WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
 Page 3 
 
 
  discussed.  This was co-sponsored by An tigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bolivia, 
Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guineas, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago. 
In the Agriculture negotiations, docum ent TN/AG/GEN/11 entitled "Proposal by 
small, vulnerable, economies on market acc ess in agriculture" was tabled.  This 
proposal was co-sponsored by Barbados , Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New 
Guineas, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago. 
In the interim we have also participated in two informal Dedicated Session meetings 
to discuss the draft Report to the General Council.  To this end may we express 
thanks to you Chair and the delegate of Switzerland who chaired one of the informal 
meetings in your absence.  The impartia lity and skill imparted by both yourself and 
the Swiss delegate was commendable and le d to a meeting of minds on the draft 
report we have before us.  There is no such  thing as a perfect report, and this is no 
exception. 
The proponents would have wished to see greater reflection on the many positive 
strides made this year as well as greater and more definitive direction for the way forward.  However, in the spirit of comp romise and good faith in which we have all 
come to the table, the small economies are prepared to support the adoption of the Report as it stands today.  It has been the result of a careful weighing of interests and 
has emanated from formal, informal, bilate ral and plurilateral meetings where there 
have often been diverging in terests;  but the small economies hold the view that given 
the environment in which the discussions have  been taking place, that is one in which 
the kind of progress expected in Hong Kong is unknown, you have produced a fair 
and balanced report. 
At the same time, discussions were held on the draft Ministerial text.  This has been 
another exercise in delicacy.  Whereas we would have preferred that stronger language be put before the Ministers, th e small economies would be willing to accept 
the language as it stands today with the removal of the brackets around the term 
"agree to" and those brackets surrounding the date. 
Chair, the small economies have carried out some solid work since July this year.  A 
number of small economies have tabled the Job document and the negotiating 
proposal in NAMA;  a number of the sma ll economies have tabled the Job document 
and the negotiating proposal in Agriculture ;  the small economies of the Caribbean 
and Pacific have tabled a fisheries propo sals in Rules;  the small economies have 
tabled a new document in the CTD DS which sought to coalesce the past and look to 
the future;  and a number of small economies have put forward four administrative 
proposals in the CTD DS. 
There are those who have said that the small economies may have missed the train for 
MC6.  While that is debatable Chair, I wish to assure you that we do have our train tickets in hand and that our seats are booke d.  We now look to you Chair  and the 
Members of this Committee to help ensu re that we are indeed on board. 
Despite this progress, there is still much to be  done.  We shall continue to engage in 
discussions in the CTD DS through the tabling of proposals of a general and administrative nature, as well as ensure that the CTD is able to monitor the WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
Page 4  
 
  discussions of small economies'  proposals in the various ne gotiating and other bodies.  
The proponents are also currently developing proposals for other areas of the negotiations such as in Services and Rules a nd hope to be able to bring these into the 
system in the New Year." 
7. The representative of St. Kitts and Nevis
 on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, 
Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent a nd the Grenadines expressed support for the statement 
made by the delegation of Barbados.  He appreciated  the work that had been undertaken by Barbados 
on behalf of small and vulnerable economies and the non-resident Members of the WTO.  He said the 
challenges faced by small economies sometimes seemed  to be insurmountable.  At the same time the 
small economies maintained a belief in a multilateral syst em that truly benefits all – not just the rich 
and the powerful, but also the small and the vulnerabl e.  In this regard, he trusted that the issues 
addressed by the delegation of Barbados would have a resonance in the WTO.  He also hoped that the 
concerns of the small and vulnera ble economies would continue to be  given the positive attention that 
they deserved as this would assist in enabling them to  be fully, effectively and beneficially integrated 
into the global trading system.   
8. He said that the small economies had tried and woul d continue to try in a variety of ways to 
meet the challenges of the multilateral system.  So me of the particular ways that these co-sponsors 
had attempted to ensure that their interests were addressed had been through joining their resources in 
several areas.  This included the establishment of a joint technical mission in Geneva representing the WTO Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Members.  He noted that while this was sub-optimal, it was this type of effective and innova tive mechanism that help ed the OECS countries in 
the WTO process.  These countries also have a joint mi ssion in Brussels, in Ottawa and a variety of 
joint institutions under the umbrella of the organizati on of Eastern Caribbean States.  In this context, 
the three proposals before the Dedicated Sessi on on TBT, SPS and TRIPs served to further 
institutionalize their practice of joining their capacities, capabilities and resources to fulfil WTO 
obligations.  This enabled the small and vulnerable states with limited capacity to address these very 
demanding obligations.  However, the OECS countri es kept in mind that the ultimate responsibility 
for the obligations undertaken at the WTO remains with the sovereign Members of the WTO and not 
with an institutional framework.  The OECS countries  fully recognized that.   The proposals that had 
been tabled presented some solutions to aid smal l countries which simply had too few officials to 
handle the plethora of issues and concerns in the WTO.  He said the OECS countries would continue 
to table to the CTD Dedicated Session and, where re levant, to negotiating groups, proposals that could 
help small economies effectively integrate into the multilateral trading system.   
9. The representative of Belize
 expressed support for the statement made by the representative 
of Barbados.  She also thanked the small econo mies group led by the delegation of Barbados for 
securing the interests of the non-residents in the Dedicated Session. 
10. The representative of the Solomon Islands  noted that the cost of implementation of some of 
the WTO Agreements was very high and that only a re gional approach could help alleviate these costs 
for the small economies.  A regional approach would also help to ensure a timely implementation of 
the agreements.  He said that numerous technical as sistance efforts had been deployed to help the 
small economies.  However, these efforts had been ineffective because of the capacity constraints 
suffered by these countries.  A regional approach w ould be a more cost-effective manner in which to 
help the small economies impl ement the WTO Agreements. 
11. The representative of Brazil  expressed his support to the proposals on SPS and TBT as his 
delegation was always in favour of regionalization.   He said that on these issues, borders were not 
very relevant.  Therefore, he thought a regi onal authority on SPS and TBT could be feasible.  WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
 Page 5 
 
 
  12. The representative of the United States  expressed constructive support for a regional approach 
on compliance with TBT and SPS obligations.  She said that her authorities had not yet reacted to the 
proposal on TRIPS.  She thought that a regional a pproach for small economies to implement some of 
their WTO obligations was worth exploring.  Sh e also asked whether these proposals had been 
submitted to the respective committees handling the se issues.  She said that the United States as a 
donor country was interested at looking at innovative and productive ways to provide technical 
assistance. 
13. The representative of Switzerland  said that as a small country Switzerland also understood 
resource constraints.  She said it was positive that  the proposals did not deviate from the WTO rules 
based system.  She asked whether the proponent s could do a presentation outlining their regional 
experiences in the relevant areas as well as th e interface with the national governments. 
14. The representative of Japan  said the proposals should be made in the respective committees 
dealing with the relevant issues.  He wanted so me clarification on where the proponents wanted to 
discuss the proposals, either in the Dedicated Sess ion or in the respective committees.  Since the 
proponents came from different geographical regions, he also wanted to know whether the proponents 
had in mind a single body for all the small economies or different bodies for each region.  He also 
asked about the relationship that was envisaged between the regional authorities and the national 
authorities regarding the process of adopting regulations .  He believed that even if there were regional 
authorities in some areas, as proposed, it would st ill be necessary to carry out individual needs 
assessments for technical assistance.  He also e xpressed his reservations on the language in the 
proposals that would make technical assistance mandatory. 
15. The representative of India  said his delegation was supportive of regional pooling of 
resources.  He asked whether there was a specific ne ed to add a new rule to the existing agreements, 
in order to achieve what was being proposed or  whether this could be done under the existing 
framework.  He also requested the proponents to clarify what would be the relation of the regional bodies with the national governments.   He was of th e view that the proposals should be made to the 
specific negotiating groups that were dealing with the issues covered by the proposals.  
16. The representative of Thailand
 on behalf of ASEAN expressed support for regional 
integration on the issues covered by the proposals.   He noted that ASEAN also had some regional 
programmes that allowed for the pooling of resources.   He asked the proponents to clarify the regional 
dimension envisaged in the proposals.  He also asked whether the new regional bodies would be conjoined with existing bodies and about the scope of the Membership in these regional bodies.   
17. The representative of Suriname
 recognized the importance of regional cooperation in the 
areas covered by the proposals and supported their content. 
18. The representative of th e European Communities  said that his delegation was receptive to the 
ideas reflected in the proposals.  However, some issues should be explored either in the Dedicated 
Session or in the negotiating bodies.  One problem that he saw in the proposals was the implication 
that technical assistance would be mandatory as this was not the usual practice of the WTO. 
19. The representative of Barbados  said that in order to reply to the questions that were raised he 
would like  his colleagues, specially from CARICOM, to consider giving him some ideas in writing.  He recalled that a question on process had been rai sed on whether these issues had been taken to the 
TBT, SPS and the TRIPs Committees.  He replied th at they had not been submitted to those bodies 
and that there were three primary reasons for that .  One was that the legal architecture of the WTO 
envisaged the possibility of bringing proposals of a general nature to the CTD for recommendations or 
decisions to the General Council.  It was the estimat ion of the proponents that the proposals were of a 
sufficiently general and administrative nature and that they could be examined in the Dedicated WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
Page 6  
 
  Session and that recommendations could emanate from the CTD.  He said the proposals did not 
recommend any change to the legal structure of the three agreements concerned.  He recalled that 
some countries had said that these issues were al ready provided for in the agreements and asked why 
there would be a need to make specific proposals.  He said the need for legal certainty in the WTO 
was paramount to small economies.  There had been instances in the past, for example, in subsidies, 
where some small economies developed certain progra mmes which they thought to be legal only to be 
told later that these subsidies were in contraven tion to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures.  He said that the need for legal structure and explicit recognition was not a matter that was 
taken lightly by small countries.   
20. He said another reason why these papers were not taken to the respective bodies was that 
none of these bodies were meeting between the time when the proposals were prepared and the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  The proponents felt that it was very important that these proposals be reflected in the CTD's Annual report to the General Council.   
21. The third issue was the capacity constraints of  small economies.  If the proposals were put 
before each of the negotiating bodies, the sma ll economy proponents would be putting three proposals 
which were quite similar in nature before three di fferent bodies.  They would then have to attend and 
participate in all those bodies as well as to follow-up on  the proposals.  From a practical point of view, 
the proponents felt the CTD could, within its mandate, examine these proposals.  This did not mean that the proponents were opposed to the idea of having the experts in the negotiating bodies examine the proposals in an informal manner.  The delegate of  Barbados said he had shared the proposals with 
the Secretariat of some of the relevant negotiating bodies and had received some positive feedback.     
22. Turning to the issue of technical assistance, he  recalled that there had been some concerns 
raised by the delegates of Japan and the European  Communities that the proponents were attempting 
to make technical assistance mandatory.  He explaine d it was not their intention, especially with the 
inclusion of the phrase "within its competence".  Th erefore, the language in the proposal does not 
make it mandatory that small economies have to r eceive technical assistance and that it has to be 
provided by any particular country or organization.  However, to im plement the regional bodies, small 
economies would need some degree of assistance, but it was never the proponent's intention to tie the 
WTO's hands into providing technical assistance.   
23. Regarding Thailand's questions, he was not in a position to answer them because officials in 
the region would only start drawing up blue prints for a regional body when there was some agreement within the WTO that small economies coul d proceed on the basis outlined in the papers.  
He noted that the new bodies would not seek to cr eate new standards.  The objective of the new 
regional body was to assist in practical ways in te rms of laboratory facilities, technical assistance and 
sharing resources and expertise.  He also indicated th at he would be happy at a later date to give an 
overview of the regional institutions that exis ted in the Caribbean and how they had been 
implemented and organized.  He said the idea was that there would be separate regional bodies for 
each region. 
24. The representative of St. Kitts and Nevis
 asked if the questions which had been raised during 
the meeting could be submitted in writing.  He not ed that the idea behind the proposals was that the 
newly created regional bodies would follow the mode l of existing regional organizations.  He 
explained that in the Caribbean region there was CARICOM and within it there was the OECS.  
These organizations had no overlap between them  and the OECS had gone further in regional 
integration.  In that regard, the OECS had a common central bank, judiciary and common regulatory 
bodies for aviation, telecommunications, governme nt procurement and others.  These bodies 
functioned on the basis of national laws and re gional actions and measur es had direct national 
application in the OECS countries.  These regional bodies were co-financed by all the OECS  WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
 Page 7 
 
 
  countries.  As another example of the regional inte gration already taking place in the Caribbean, he 
also mentioned that CARICOM had a regional standards authority. 
25. The representative of Peru  suggested that proposals be submitted to the specialized groups.  
She thought that the proposals were not just of an "administrative and genera l" nature.  She reserved 
the right to make further comments on the proposal s when they were introduced to the respective 
negotiating groups. 
26. The representative of Fiji  said there are 14 small island states in the pacific region and that 
only three of those states were WTO Members.  The pacific islands had a regional integration 
framework known as the South Pacific Community.  Among the competencies of the South Pacific Community was the issue of standards. 
27. The representative of Bahamas
 supported the statements of Ba rbados and St. Kitts and Nevis 
on behalf of the OECS. 
28. The representative of Vanuatu  supported the proposals and said that his country, as a small 
island state, also suffered from capacity constraints.   He said a regional authority could help alleviate 
this problem. 
29. The representative of St. Lucia  complimented Barbados on its leadership and the other 
proponents on the work done on the proposals on SPS, TBT and TRIPs.  She said the severe constraints faced by small economies as a result of small size were numerous.  They had permanent 
structural handicaps such as very limited land sp ace and human resources.  She said that their 
exposure to exogenous shocks, whethe r they be of an economic or natural origin, contributes to very 
high vulnerability indices, according to documents pub lished by many international organizations.  
These deficiencies imposed numerous restrictions and hampered meaningful economic growth for 
small economies, especially if they acted individua lly.  A regional approach was therefore necessary 
for adequate representation in the multilateral trad ing system.  She said the Work Programme and the 
proposals on the designation of a regional body were very important to small economies because they 
address these deficiencies and would inevitably result  in more of the small economies being able to 
actively and effectively participate in the multilatera l trading system.  She trusted this would also 
contribute to new impetus for the Work Programme in Hong Kong. 
30. The Chairman
 noted that there was broad support for the proposals.  He hoped that the 
Dedicated Session could move forward on these proposals early in the coming year. 
D. COMMUNICATION FROM ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA , BARBADOS , CUBA, DOMINICA , FIJI, 
GRENADA , JAMAICA , MAURITIUS , PAPUA NEW GUINEA , SOLOMON ISLANDS , ST. KITTS AND 
NEVIS, ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES ENTITLED "ACCESSION TO THE WTO"  
(WT/COMTD/SE/W/17) 
31. The Chairman  asked if any of the delegations which had co-sponsored 
document WT/COMTD/SE/W/17 would like to take th e floor to introduce the submission to the 
Dedicated Session. 
32. The representative of the Solomon Islands  made the following statement:   
"Thank you for giving me the floor to introduce paper WT/COMTD/SE/W/17 on 
Accession to the WTO.  This paper, you will note, is sponsored by Antigua and 
Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Fiji, Gr enada, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, 
Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
Page 8  
 
  Many WTO Members who have gone through the process of accession since the 
creation of the WTO have found the process burdensome and onerous.  This has been 
particularly the case for the many small and vulnerable economies which are particularly disadvantaged in terms of their ability to negotiate. 
The principle difficulty faced by small vulnerable economies is common to all 
acceding countries irrespective of their size.  Accession negotiations are 
fundamentally different from other WTO negotiations.  During accession, the applicant may make no demands of other WTO Members. 
In such a process, where a party cannot im pose any cost for demands placed by WTO 
Members, the outcome is predictable.  The negotiations will result in what we have 
seen – long protracted negotiations where acceding countries have had no option but 
to make 'WTO plus' concessions. 
In our proposal, we are therefore asking that the rule of law be introduced on 
accession through the establishment of a panel of experts so that applicant countries have legal protection in the event that a party feels that the terms of reference of a 
working party have been exceeded. 
Many WTO Members have asked why small vulnerable economies seek such 
provisions.  The answer is that in a nego tiation, where one party is fundamentally 
disadvantaged, then it is the rule of law that protects those which are weak and disadvantaged.  This created a relatively le vel playing field.  This is one of the 
greatest achievements of this organisation and the proponents of this proposal are 
asking that this protection be al so extended to acceding countries." 
33. The representative of Vanuatu
 said the issue of accessions was very important to the Pacific 
island acceding countries Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu.  He supported the panel system that was being 
proposed in document WT/COMTD/SE/W/17.  He noted that his country had been in accession negotiations since 1995.  He also highlighted the July 2002 Decision on LDC accession  and the 
Livingstone Declaration on LDCs.  The WTO, he sa id, should be for all countries whether they were 
big or small. 
34. The representative of Samoa
 expressed support for the proposal.  He understood that the 
proposal was a reflection of the acceding countries' c oncerns.  He said Samoa was a vulnerable, small 
economy and an LDC with a population of only 180, 000.  Samoa had started its accession process 
in 1998.  He believed that, especially at bilatera l levels, some Members of Samoa's Working Party 
continued to request or make demands on tariff binding, quotas and services where he felt his 
delegation had responded r easonably.  He believed that the adoption by the WTO of a decision on 
LDC accession was not enough.  The decision still did not reduce the problems faced by small vulnerable economies and LDC acceding countries.  Th is, he said, was because of the lack of basic 
rules governing the process to ensure that it was fair and equitable.   
35. The representative of Tonga
 said his country hoped to become the 150th WTO Member at the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  He said that  Tonga had been in the accession process for ten 
years and was conscious of the problems for acc eding countries.  Therefore, he supported the 
proposal. 
36. The representative of Barbados  supported the proposal and tha nked the acceding countries for 
their practical perspective for why such a proposal was needed.  WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
 Page 9 
 
 
  37. The Chairman  said that he was not aware the acceding countries were experiencing so many 
difficulties. 
38. The representative of the United States  said her delegation had slightly different views on this 
proposal than those on the SPS and the TBT proposal .  She agreed that some of the accessions of 
LDCs and others had taken a long time.  However, she said the WT O had recent experiences where a 
number of small economies and even LDCs had managed the accession process quite well and quite 
rapidly.  She mentioned the accession of Cape Verde as an example and said that although these 
negotiations were not done yet, the process was goi ng smoothly.  She said her delegation was pleased 
that the discussions with Tonga where almost done and hoped to be able to conclude them very soon.  
She was concerned that the general sense conveyed  in the paper was that the demands placed on 
accession countries were unreasonable.  She believed that adoption of WTO rules by those countries 
which wished to join the institution was not a demand, it was just the reality.  She said it was 
incumbent on the Members of the institution to try to come into conformity with these rules.  
Although this process was challenging, significant amounts of technical assistance is provided to acceding countries.  She believed small economies were  trying to have a similar decision as that 
agreed for LDC accession.  She was not sure th is was necessary as there were only a few small 
economies which were not already WTO Members.  She thought it would be bette r to deal practically, 
one by one, with the concerns that individual countri es had, rather than addressing them in a generic 
way.  She noted that Members had heard from so me countries that had recently acceded that the 
process of accession negotiations actually helped make  their economies more able to use trade as a 
tool for development and encouraged both domest ic and foreign investment.  She was concerned 
about trying to radically change the accession proce ss.  She acknowledged that there was no perfect 
system but the current accession process permitted wide  participation and full transparency in its 
operation and was working to assist many countries to develop the trade capacity and participate more 
fully in the multilateral trade system.  
39. The representative of the Switzerland
 said she agreed with the co re objective of the paper.  
However, she believed that the proposed pane l mechanism could complicate the accession process 
and may not be effective.   
40. The representative of Japan  said he understood some of the problems that the small acceding 
economies were going through in their accession processes.   However, he disagreed with the proposal 
because it created a general exemption in the acce ssion process for  a group of countries on the basis 
of being a small economy.  He sa id it would be better to deal with the problems faced by small 
acceding countries on an individual basis. 
41. The Chairman  said he understood that a long accession process could lead to high levels of 
frustration.  He said that if the current proposal w as not acceptable, alternative ways would need to be 
explored to alleviate some of the problems faced by small, acceding countries. 
42. The representative of the European Communities  said he agreed that difficulties with the 
accession process might not be a generic issue but one that would be better dealt with by focusing on 
individual accession processes.  He requested furthe r clarification on how the proponents intended to 
operationalize the statement in the proposal rega rding giving appropriate consideration to the 
situations of small acceding economies, and on the functioning of the panel mechanism envisaged in 
the proposal.  He noted that there was already a decision on the accession of LDCs and that he was 
not sure whether a similar type of d ecision was necessary for small economies.  
43. The representative of Bahamas  said she agreed with the Chairm an that an alternative needed 
to be found to alleviate the problems of accession to the WTO by small economies.  Bahamas was in the process of accession and she said that this w as an important issue that should addressed as 
acceding countries should not be put in a difficult position when it came to their accession. WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
Page 10  
 
  44. The representative of the Solomon Islands
 noted that among the two acceding Pacific island 
states, two were LDCs.  He said the objective of the proposals was to introduce the rule of law to the 
WTO accession process.  The proponents considered th at a panel process was appropriate since this 
was the mechanism used in the WTO for the settleme nt of disputes.  He noted that the case of 
Vanuatu, a least-developed acceding country, illustrat ed the extent of commitments sought from an 
acceding, small and vulnerable economy.  During its  accession process, Vanuatu (with a population of 
around 160,000) was requested to join the plurila teral Agreements on Gove rnment Procurement and 
on Trade in Civil Aircraft, which are optional, as a condition for its WTO accession.  Vanuatu had 
refused and noted that it should not be obliged to accept much more stringent commitments than those 
of the LDCs with original WTO Member status, thus avoiding setting a precedent unfavourable to 
other acceding LDCs.  On tariffs, Vanuatu's average bound rate of tariff was 49 per cent, Fiji – 40, 
Papua New Guinea – 40, and Solomon Islands – 80.  This clearly demonstrated that Vanuatu had 
made offers not dissimilar to those made by much larger and more developed countries in the region, 
and much lower than offers made by LDCs such as Solomon Islands.  Vanuatu had also agreed to 
zero-for–zero commitments in more than 160 tariff lin es and was in full conformity with zero-for-zero 
initiatives in information technology.  It had offere d to provide duty-free access for aircraft and parts 
and pharmaceuticals by 2005.  He went on to say th at no other LDC made offers even remotely close 
to those of Vanuatu during the Uruguay Round.  In the services sector, the commitments made by Vanuatu were far more extensive than those ma de by other WTO Members.  Vanuatu had made 
service sector commitments with clear and unambi guous market opening commitments in 18 areas.  
This was more than four times the average for LDCs  that were Members of the WTO.  He said that 
the current accession process allowed for the extrac tion of concessions from acceding countries that 
would not otherwise be possible in a rules based sy stem.  Nevertheless, the proponents were willing to 
look at other alternatives in case the pr oposed panel process was not acceptable. 
45. The representative of Brazil
 sympathised with the problems of small acceding economies.  
However, he did not believe that the proposed panel process was a good way to deal with those 
problems.  One of the differences that he saw with  the other three proposals was that the problems in 
the other three proposals were clearly related to  the size of the economy and the ensuing capacity 
constraints.  The proposals on accessions did not deal with a problem that was exclusive of small economies.  He noted that panels in the WTO were  a mechanism that was established in the DSU to 
enforce compliance with written rules and not to di ffuse principles of fairness or equity.  Another 
issue concerned transparency, which he believed, acceding countries should bring to the attention of 
Members when unreasonable demands were presented to them.  It was also important to help 
acceding countries by providing technical assistance.  He mentioned that the delegation of Brazil had 
just hosted representatives from all Portuguese spea king developing countries in Geneva for a two 
week course on the WTO and negotiations.  
46. The Chairman
 said that most Members understood th e concerns of the small acceding 
countries and the CTD provided a good forum where th ese concerns could be aired.  Most of these 
issues regarding accession were dealt with at the bilate ral level.  However, when problems were not 
resolved bilaterally, it was important to raise them to  the multilateral level.  He suggested that in cases 
of difficulties, acceding countries could look into using good offices, including those of the Secretariat, as a way of resolving differences.  He  noted that small economies could also suffer from 
resource constraints in their negotiations and that this had to be recognized.  
47. The representative of Vanuatu
 supported the statement made  by the delegation of the 
Solomon Islands.  He said that there were two  im portant issues in the propos al.  One issue was that 
since accession negotiations were done bilaterally , it may not be known to other Members when 
unreasonable demands were being placed on the table.  The other issue concerned the rule of law as 
one player in the process could also become the refe ree.  He said these issues had been raised in 
several fora and, that unless a pragmatic solu tion was found, small economies could not join the  WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
 Page 11 
 
 
  multilateral trading system.  He added that for th e Pacific island states, acceding to the WTO would 
bring tangible benefits that would greatly  enhance their development programmes.  
48. The Dedicated Session took note  of the statements made.  
F. DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT IN DEDICATED SESSION 
TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL (WT/COMTD/SE/W/19) 
49. The Chairman  said that since the last Dedicated Sessi on a series of informal consultations had 
been held to gather the views of Members on th e Dedicated Session's draft report to the General 
Council.  Discussions had been held as well on a para graph which could be used in a draft Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration.  Regarding the draft repor t to the General Council, informal consultations 
were held on 28 October 2005.  He said that in  his absence, consultations were held by a 
representative of the Swiss delegation.  He expres sed his appreciation to her for a job well done.  
Following these consultations the draft report was circulated as document W/COMTD/SE/W/19.   
50. The Chairman said he had recently held a consultation with a small group of interested 
Members to clarify certain aspects of the report.  These consultations were held on 11 November 2005 
and a revised version of the report was circulat ed as document WT/COMTD/SE/W/19/Rev.1.  This 
revision contained only minor changes to the last tw o sentences of paragraph 16.  The Chairman noted 
that paragraph 14 of the report was still in brackets since it was meant to reflect the 13th Dedicated 
Session.  He asked if the brackets could be lifted. 
51. It was so decided . 
52. He then asked if the report could be adopted. 
53. The representative of Peru  said that the reference in paragr aph 14 should be changed to read 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/19/Rev.1. 
54. The report was adopted  as amended.   
55. The Chairman  said the Report of the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated 
Session to the General Council would be circulated as document WT/COMTD/SE/4. 
56. Regarding the text on the Work Programme on Small Economies for inclusion in the draft 
Ministerial Declaration, the Chairman said that cons ultations were held on the text of this paragraph 
on 19 October 2005.  After an informal consensus was reached on this draft it was sent to the Council 
Division of the Secretariat as requested by Amb assador Amina Mohamed Chairman of the General 
Council.  He explained there was a need to hold further consultations on 11 November 2005 when  
Members proposed two minor stylistic changes to make  the text of the Ministerial Declaration better 
coincide with the Dedicated Session's report and with the mandate in paragraph 35 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration.  The Chairman said that having just adopted the De dicated Session's report to 
the General Council, the brackets around the words "a gree to" in the text were no longer necessary.  
He suggested, however, to leave the brackets around the date "31 December 2006" as this corresponded to the end date for all work.  This w as the text that would be forwarded to Ambassador 
Amina Mohamed, Chairman of the General Council, for inclusion in the draft Ministerial Declaration.   
57. The representative of St. Lucia
 said the Doha Declaration in its paragraph 35 made it 
explicitly clear that it was not the intention to create a sub-category of Members.  Therefore, she found that the sub-sentence in the third line of  the text on small economies for the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration was superfluous.  She sai d the singling-out and unnecessary repetition of this WT/COMTD/SE/M/13 
Page 12  
 
  idea could be misinterpreted as casting doubt on the sincerity of Members or it may imply 
ambivalence about the treatment of small economies. 
58. The representative of Barbados
 explained that the text had been the result of extensive 
consultations and that small economies had agr eed to the text in a spirit of compromise. 
59. The representative of Surinam  supported the texts being presen ted for adoption and noted his 
delegation's intention to continue to actively par ticipate in the Work Programme on Small Economies. 
60. The Chairman  proposed that Members agree on the revised text of the paragraph on the Work 
Programme on Small Economies for inclusion in the draft Ministerial Declaration. 
61. It was so agreed . 
62. The meeting was adjourned .  
__________