WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
8 June 2007  
 
(07-2376) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Dedicated Session  
 
 
 
WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES  
 
Compilation paper prepared by the Secretariat  
  
 
I.
 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .4 
II. MANDATE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK...........................................................................5  
A. PARAGRAPH 35 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION – WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1  
(20 N OVEMBER 2001) .................................................................................................................5  
B. PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES FRAMEWORK AND 
PROCEDURES – WT/L/447  (1 MARCH 2002)...............................................................................5  
C. PARAGRAPH 1.D OF THE 1 AUGUST :  2004  GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION - WT/L/579.............6  
D. PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION - 
WT/MIN(05)/DEC  (18 D ECEMBER 2005) ..................................................................................6  
D.1 REFERENCES TO SES IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE SECTION ON NAMA  IN THE 
HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION .................................................................................7  
D.2 REFERENCES TO SES IN THE SERVICES – ANNEX C OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL 
DECLARATION .............................................................................................................................7  
E. OTHER TEXTS OFTEN CITED BY SES IN THE 1 AUGUST 2004  GENERAL COUNCIL 
DECISION – ANNEX B NAMA  FRAMEWORK – WT/L/579  (2 A UGUST  2004).............................7  
III. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE - SPECIAL SESSION ..............................................8  
A. CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT AND "CHALLENGES " PAPER ......................................................8  
1. Draft Possible Modalities on Agriculture – TN/AG/W/3 (12 July 2006)..............................8  
2. Communication from the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Special 
Session -Second Instalment (25 May 2007).............................................................................8  
B. HISTORIC EVOLUTION ...............................................................................................................10  
1. Overview of Small Economies' Positions on the Agriculture Negotiations – JOB(05)/161 (27 July 2005)....................................................................................................1 0
 
2. Proposal by the Small, Vulnerable Econom ies on Market Access in Agriculture – 
TN/AG/GEN/11 (11 November 2005)....................................................................................11  
3. Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs  – Room Document (4 May 2006)..........................11  
4. Report by the Chairman to the TNC – TN/AG/21 (28 November 2005), also 
Annex A of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration ...........................................................12  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 2  
 
  5.
 Contribution by the SVEs on the Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs – 
JOB(06)/164 (31 May 2006)....................................................................................................12  
6. Chairman's Revised Consolidated Ref erence Paper on Possible Modalities on 
Market Access – (9 June 2006) ..............................................................................................13  
7. Revised Consolidated Reference Pape r on Modalities on Market Access – 
Contribution on the Treatment of SV Es – JOB(06)/196 (19 June 2006) ...........................13  
8. Submission on the Treatment of Small Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) – 
JOB(07)/47 (11 April 2007) ....................................................................................................1 4 
IV. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS...........................................................................................16  
A. CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT .................................................................................................16  
1. Towards NAMA modalities – TN/MA/W/80 (19 July 2006) ...............................................16  
B. HISTORIC EVOLUTION ...............................................................................................................18  
1. Market Access for Non-Agricultural Produc ts - Treatment of Small, Vulnerable 
Economies in the NAMA Negotiations - TN/MA/W/66 (11 November 2005)....................18  
2. Progress Report by the Chairman to  the Trade Negotiations Committee – 
TN/MA/16 (24 November 2005), also Annex B of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration .................................................................................................................... ..........18
 
3. NAMA – Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Criteria and 
Treatment of SVEs, submission by the SVEs – (1 May 2006).............................................19  
4. Small and Vulnerable Economies - Text Proposal for the Chairman of NAMA 
by the Delegations of Costa Rica and Ur uguay – Room Document (30 May 2006)..........20  
5. NAMA 11 - Non-Paper – Small Vulnerable Economies – (30 May 2006)..........................20  
6. Proposal on Small, Vulnerable Economies by Norway – Room Document 
(6 June 2006).................................................................................................................. ..........21  
7. Treatment of Small, Vulnerable Economi es in the NAMA Negotiations, Proposal 
by the SVEs – (15 June 2006).................................................................................................21  
V. COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERV ICES SPECIAL SESSION.........................................23  
1. Services – Information Note (November 2005) ....................................................................23  
VI. WORKING PARTY ON DOME STIC REGULATION .....................................................24  
A. CURRENT STATE -OF-PLAY........................................................................................................24  
B. PROPOSAL BY THE SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES ............................................................24  
1. Services - Trade-Related Concerns of Small, Vulnerable Economies in the 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  - JOB(06)/66/Rev.2 (10 July 2006).....................24  
VII. NEGOTIATING GROU P ON RULES.................................................................................27  
1. WTO Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines – Architecture on Fisheries Subsidies 
Disciplines - TN/RL/GEN/57/Re v.2 (13 September 2005)...................................................27  
2. Special and Differential Treatment in the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations:  
Views of the Small, Vulnerable Economi es (SVEs) - TN/RL/W/210 (6 June 2007)..........27  
VIII.  COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES.....................31  
A. CURRENT STATE -OF-PLAY........................................................................................................31   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 3 
 
 
  1. Chairman's Proposal for the Text of a Draft Decision – JOB/(07)78 (6 June 
2007) .......................................................................................................................... ...............31  
B. HISTORIC EVOLUTION ...............................................................................................................38  
1. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures - G/SCM/W/535 a nd Add.1 (12 April 2006 and 20 July 
2006) .......................................................................................................................... ...............38  
2. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 and 537) – JOB(07)/49 (18 April 2007)..........38  
3. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 and 537) – JOB(07)/50 (19 April 2007)..........43  
IX. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON TRADE FACILITATION .................................................48  
1. Regional Approaches to Trade Facilitation:  Enquiry Points - 
TN/TF/W/129/Rev.1 (21 July 2006).......................................................................................48  
X. AID FOR TRADE TASK FORCE........................................................................................50  
1. Aid for Trade - WT/AFT/W/18 (15 June 2006)....................................................................50  
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 4  
 
  I. INTRODUCTION 
 Paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration
1 instructs the CTD in Dedicated 
Session to monitor progress of the small economies' proposals in the negotiating and other bodies.  At 
its Fifteenth Dedicated Session on 20 July 2006, Me mbers requested that the Secretariat prepare a 
note that would help the CTD in Dedicated Session to monitor work currently underway in WTO and 
in the negotiating groups.  The Secretariat's pape r is based on the compilation paper that had been 
prepared by a group of small economies2 and incorporates the reports by the various Chairs of the 
negotiating groups and the relevant excerpts from the minutes of the meetings where the small economy proposals had been discussed.   
 The present document attempts to reflect the cu rrent state of play of the small economies' 
issues discussed so far in the negotiating and othe r bodies.  This document has been prepared under 
the Secretariat's own responsibility and does not prejudice the right of any Member to raise other concerns or views related to the Work Programme on Small Economies. 
                                                     
 
1 WT/MIN(05)/DEC. 
2 WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 5 
 
 
  II. MANDATE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A. PARAGRAPH 35 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION – WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1  
(20 N OVEMBER 2001) 
We agree to a work programme, under the auspices of the General Council, to 
examine issues relating to the trade of sma ll economies.  The objective of this work is 
to frame responses to the trade-related issu es identified for the fuller integration of 
small, vulnerable economies into the multila teral trading system, and not to create a 
sub-category of WTO Members.  The General Council shall review the work programme and make recommendations for action to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference. 
B. P
ARAGRAPH 2 OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES FRAMEWORK AND 
PROCEDURES – WT/L/447  (1 MARCH 2002) 
In pursuance of this mandate, the Work Programme shall be undertaken in 
accordance with the following framework and procedures:   
(a) The Work Programme shall remain under the overall responsibility of 
the General Council. 
(b) The General Council shall have the Work Programme on Small 
Economies (WPSE) as a standing item on its agenda. 
(c) The objective of this work is to frame responses to the trade-related 
issues identified for the fuller integra tion of small, vulnerable economies 
into the multilateral trading system. 
(d) The General Council shall instruct the CTD to have a programme of 
work on small economies which will be  conducted in dedicated sessions 
of the CTD.   
(e) The CTD shall report regularly to  the General Council on the progress 
of work in the dedicated sessions. 
(f) The Chairperson of the regular CTD shall also be the Chair for the 
dedicated sessions of the CTD. 
(g) The dedicated sessions of the CTD shall have an agreed calendar of 
meetings to complete the work under its mandate. 
(h) The CTD will hold informal meetings as necessary with a view to 
assisting the formal process in the dedicated sessions of the CTD. 
(i) In accordance with the outcome of  the programme of work in the CTD, 
the General Council shall, as appropriate, direct relevant subsidiary bodies to frame responses to the trade -related issues identified by the 
CTD with a view to making recomme ndations for action to the Fifth 
Session of the Ministerial Conference as mandated.  This does not 
prejudice the right of Members to submit for consideration proposals 
relating to the concerns of small economies to the relevant WTO bodies. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 6  
 
  (j) As and when necessary, the dedicated sessions of the CTD will work in 
collaboration with relevant subsidiary bodies. 
(k) Members are urged to make their own contributions to the work of the 
CTD under its programme of work.  The  General Council shall instruct 
the WTO Secretariat to provide rel evant information and factual 
analysis, inter alia, 
(i) on the impact of WTO rules on Small Economies; 
(ii) on the constraints faced by Small Economies as well as their 
shortfalls in institutional and adm inistrative capacities, including 
in the area of human resources; 
(iii) on the effects of Trade Liberalization on Small Economies. 
The CTD will also request information and analysis from other agencies 
and bodies that carry out work on small economies. 
 
C. P
ARAGRAPH 1.D OF THE 1 AUGUST :  2004  GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION - WT/L/579 
The trade-related issues identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable 
economies into the multilateral trading system, should also be addressed, without creating a sub-category of Members, as par t of a work programme, as mandated in 
paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
D. P
ARAGRAPH 41 OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION - WT/MIN(05)/DEC  
(18 D ECEMBER 2005) 
We reaffirm our commitment to the Work Programme on Small Economies and urge 
Members to adopt specific measures that w ould facilitate the fuller integration of 
small, vulnerable economies into the mu ltilateral trading system, without creating a 
sub-category of WTO Members.  We take note of the report of the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated Session on the Work Programme on Small 
Economies to the General Council and agree to the recommendations on future work.  
We instruct the Committee on Trade  and Development, under the overall 
responsibility of the General Council, to con tinue the work in the Dedicated Session 
and to monitor progress of the small ec onomies' proposals in the negotiating and 
other bodies, with the aim of providing res ponses to the trade-related issues of small 
economies as soon as possible but no later than 31 December 2006.  We instruct the 
General Council to report on progress and ac tion taken, together with any further 
recommendations as appropriate, to our next Session.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 7 
 
 
  D.1 R EFERENCES TO SES IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE SECTION ON NAMA  IN THE HONG KONG 
MINISTERIAL DECLARATION  
 P ARAGRAPH 21 
 
We note the concerns raised by small,  vulnerable economies, and instruct the 
Negotiating Group to establish ways to  provide flexibilities for these Members 
without creating a sub-category of WTO Members. 
D.2 R EFERENCES TO SES IN THE SERVICES – ANNEX C OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL 
DECLARATION  
PARAGRAPH 8 
 
Due consideration shall be given to pr oposals on trade-related concerns of small 
economies. 
E. OTHER TEXTS OFTEN CITED BY SES IN THE 1 AUGUST 2004  GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION – 
ANNEX B NAMA  FRAMEWORK – WT/L/579  (2 A UGUST  2004) 
 PARAGRAPH 6 
 
We furthermore agree that, as an exception, participants with a binding coverage of 
non-agricultural tariff lines of less than [35] per cent would be exempt from making tariff reductions through the formula.  Inste ad, we expect them to bind [100] per cent 
of non-agricultural tariff lines at an average  level that does not exceed the overall 
average of bound tariffs for all developing countries after full implementation of 
current concessions. 
P
ARAGRAPH 8  
 
We agree that developing-country partici pants shall have longer implementation 
periods for tariff reductions.  In addition, th ey shall be given the following flexibility: 
(a) applying less than formula cuts to up to [10] per cent of the tariff lines 
provided that the cuts are no less than  half the formula cuts and that these 
tariff lines do not exceed [10] per cent of the total value of a Member's 
imports;  or 
(b) keeping, as an exception, tariff lines unbound, or not applying formula cuts 
for up to [5] per cent of tariff lines pr ovided they do not exceed [5] per cent of 
the total value of a Member's imports. 
PARAGRAPH 9  
 
We agree that least-developed country partic ipants shall not be required to apply the 
formula nor participate in the sectorial approach, however, as part of their 
contribution to this round of negotiations, they are expected  to substantially increase 
their level of binding commitments. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 8  
 
  III. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE - SPECIAL SESSION 
A. C
URRENT MODALITIES DRAFT AND "CHALLENGES " PAPER  
1. Draft Possible Modalities on Agriculture – TN/AG/W/3 (12 July 2006)  
  [ I .  S MALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
 
47. Members with economies that, in the period [1999] to [2004], had an average 
share of (a) world merchandise trade of no more than [0.16] per cent, (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more than [0.10] per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than [0. 40] per cent shall have the right to reduce 
bound duties by [ ] less than those that would otherwise have been required under 
paragraph 4 above.   
48. Any Member meeting the criteria in pa ragraph 47 shall have the right to self-
designate at least [ ] per cent of tariff lines as Special Products based on criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural de velopment needs.  Such Members shall 
not be required to undertake reductions in bound duties, increase bound tariff quotas 
or be subject to a tariff cap] on these products.] 
49. [Developed country] Members shall provide enhanced improvements in 
market access for products of export inter est to Members with small, vulnerable 
economies.] 
2. Communication from the Chairman of the Co mmittee on Agriculture, Special Session -
Second Instalment (25 May 2007) 
17. From the mandate it is clear that the m odalities should address the fuller integration 
of small, vulnerable economies into the multila teral trading system but without creating a 
sub-category of Members.  In the proposals made by the group of small, vulnerable 
economies, three distinct elements have been raised: the definition of what is a small, 
vulnerable economy; how their concerns re lating to improving market access may be 
addressed; and how their export interests may be addressed.   
18. In order to define what is a small, vulne rable economy, there is a proposal from the 
group which states that they are Members w ith economies that, in the period 1999 to 2004, 
had an average share of world merchandise trade of 0.16 per cent or less and world trade in 
non agricultural products of 0.1 per cent or l ess and world trade in agricultural products of 
0.4 per cent or less.  In the absence of any contra ry view I will take that this definition is 
acceptable.  I would also assume that in submitting their draft Schedules any Member that 
claims that its economy meets these criteria  would provide verifiable supporting data. 
19. The group of small, vulnerable economies proposed that their export interests should 
be addressed by a modality that would re quire all Members to provide enhanced 
improvements in market access for products of ex port interest to SVEs.  I do not recall any 
delegation disagreeing with this proposal.   
20. While the proposal made by the SVE group is independent of proposals on Special 
Products generally, I would note that it does follow ve ry closely that of the G-33.  However, at 
this stage there is no consensus among Member s on the designation and treatment of Special 
Products.  Therefore, I feel that, at this stag e, there is little I can usefully add beyond noting 
that, as regards my own comments on special products, I would have envisaged that some  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 9 
 
 
  form of additional flexibility – whether in te rms of number and/or treatment – under Special 
Products – reflecting the potentiality of dispropor tionate impact – would appear to have been 
the most appropriate means for addressing the sp ecific import concerns of small, vulnerable 
economies. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 10  
 
   
B. H
ISTORIC EVOLUTION  
1. Overview of Small Economies' Positions on the Agriculture Negotiations – JOB(05)/161 
(27 July 2005) 
4. Taking into account documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/12 and 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/13/Rev.1, the small, vulnera ble economies would like to highlight the 
following fundamental considerations: 
 
(a) The agricultural sector in small, vulne rable economies plays a key role in the 
attainment of their socio-economic deve lopment goals, in particular with 
respect to food security, rural development, exports and employment.  The 
volatility of international prices for pr oducts exported by small, vulnerable 
economies constitutes an important factor  of high vulnerability for some 
small, vulnerable economies.  In this  context, it is important for small 
economies that these issues be addressed  satisfactorily in the agriculture 
negotiations; 
(b) Small, vulnerable economies have an in significant level of participation in 
the multilateral trading system and a minimal share of total world trade.  Furthermore, these economies are constrained by low levels of competitiveness.  Issues related to market access for small economies' 
products should be addressed satisfactorily so that these economies can 
participate meaningfully in the multilate ral trading system in accordance with 
their level of development; 
(c) Small, vulnerable economie s have critical concerns in the market access 
pillar of the agriculture negotiations , including special and differential 
treatment and flexibilities and economic development broadly.  For most 
small economies, tariffs are the only tool at their disposal to protect their 
agricultural sectors.  It is therefore crucial that the tariff reduction formula be flexible enough to accommodate the con cerns of small vulnerable economies; 
(d) Bearing in mind the key contribution that agriculture makes to the food 
security and rural development of small, vulnerable economies, these countries consider that the provisions of Special Products and the Special 
Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) are important for the development of their 
agricultural sectors.  Accordingly, Sp ecial Products shall be exempted from 
tariff reductions and from any commitment s on TRQs.  Special Products shall 
also have access to the SSM;   
(e) The issue of maintenance of current de minimis  support levels for developing 
countries is of major importance to small, vulnerable economies, especially 
since they do not have access to the aggregate measure of support (AMS).  We wish to emphasize that there is no justification for the reduction of de minimis support by developing countries;  
(f) The concerns of small, vulnerable economies shall be taken into account in 
all the provisions of special and differential treatment which are provided in 
the Doha mandate.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 11 
 
 
  2. Proposal by the Small, Vulnerable Econom ies on Market Access in Agriculture – 
TN/AG/GEN/11 (11 November 2005) 
Proponents :  Barbados, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Re public, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, P apua New Guinea, Par aguay and Trinidad and 
Tobago. 
 
 8. Small, vulnerable economies (SVEs), with the exception of LDCs, whose average 
share of world merchandise exports over th e period 1995-2004 do not exceed 0.10 per cent, 
will make a contribution to the reform proces s in agriculture according to the following 
provisions:  
 
• Small, vulnerable economies will undertake linear cuts not exceeding 15 per cent, 
with a minimum of 10 per cent per tariff line, from the bound rate.  No further commitments will be expected from the small, vulnerable economies on the basis of modalities that may be agreed with respect to other elements under the market access 
pillar. 
• No tariff capping shall apply to the small, vulnerable economies. 
• Modalities shall provide for substantial impr ovement in market access for products of 
export interest to small, vulnerable economies. 
• Small, vulnerable economies will designate  Special Products based on their food 
security, livelihood security and rural development needs. 
• Special Products of small, vulnerable ec onomies will be exempted from tariff 
reductions and tariff rate quota commitments. 
• All agricultural tariff lines will be eligib le for the Special Safeguard Mechanism 
(SSM).  SPs of small, vulnerable economi es will have automatic access to the SSM. 
• The small, vulnerable economies insist that the SSM shall contemplate price and 
volume-based triggers.  Remedy measures shoul d be effective and flexible to respond 
to the needs of the small, vulnerable economies.  
 
3. Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs – Room Document (4 May 2006) 
 3. The criteria for defining small, vulnerable economies and possible modalities 
available to them, or from which they might benefit, do not apply only to the agriculture 
negotiations.  This note, however, can only a ddress the agriculture specific elements and is 
without prejudice to proposals and discussions in other negotiating bodies.  However, some elements of these other proposals and discussions may offer some clarification on specific issues relating to SVEs, such as the criteria that might be relevant for defining a Member as a having a "small, vulnerable economy". 
   Proposed modalities for market access  
 4. The negotiations have benefited from a specific proposal
3 in the market access area 
that outlines possible provisions the SVEs propose should apply to them.  These provisions could be summarised as: 
 
• Tariff reduction formula :  linear cuts not exceeding 15 per cent, with a minimum of 
10 per cent per tariff line and no tariff cap; 
                                                     
 
3 See Attachment 1 to this reference paper;   see also JOB(05)/161 (27 July 2005). WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 12  
 
  • Special Safeguard Mechanism  (SSM):  automatic access for all agricultural tariff 
lines; 
• Special Products :  self-designation based on food security, livelihood security and 
rural development needs;  exemption fr om tariff reductions and tariff rate quota 
commitments;  and 
• Offensive interests :  Substantial improvement in market access for products of export 
interest. 
 Issues to be addressed 
7. In view of the level of uncertainty su rrounding the distinct elements of the general 
provisions for market access and related special and differential treatment, a focused response 
to the specific proposals made by the SVEs remain s elusive.  However, if there are to be any 
provisions for SVEs, they will have to be part of the modalities.  Although some SVEs 
Members have supported the ACP comprehensive proposal – notably as regards the proposed 
tariff cuts for developing countries, which they see as a good basis for accommodating their 
concerns – there has been little convergence among Members regarding the core tariff reduction formula, Sensitive Products and the sp ecial and differential treatment provisions (of 
which, Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism are key elements). 
8. It is encouraging to note, however, that practically all of the individual elements 
covered by the SVE proposal have already been the subject of intensive discussions in various 
formats under the Special Session of the Committe e on Agriculture.  Furthermore, each of 
these topics is being addressed in the various Chairman's Reference Papers which are being prepared or revised.  The direct involvement of SV Es at this stage is crucial in order to ensure 
that their specific views on the various market access parameters, as well as on meaningful 
special and differential treatment, are adequate ly incorporated.  They, and other Members, 
will also need to assess what additional provisions, if any, may be needed in addition to those 
available under special and differential treatment. 
9. Furthermore, market access is not entirely de-linked from the other two pillars of 
negotiations.  As noted by SVEs themselves,  market access conditions to international 
markets will be effectively improved only if trade-distorting measures affecting agricultural 
trade are also corrected and addressed.  To a large extent, through the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration and in the recent negotiations, it would appear th at the political will and support 
exists already for some improvements:  the final date for the elimination of all forms of export 
subsidies has been agreed;  and there h as been some convergence on reductions in 
trade-distorting domestic support.  These topics ar e definitely on the agenda for reform and I 
have addressed some of them through earlier Reference Papers. 
10. All these elements must be brought together in the right way, i.e. in a horizontal (no 
sub-category of WTO Members), inclusive,  transparent and participatory process. 
4. Report by the Chairman to the TNC – TN/AG/21 (28 November 2005), also Annex A of 
the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration  
26. In the case of small and vulnerable econom ies, a concrete proposal has been made 
recently.  It has not yet been subject to consultation. 
5. Contribution by the SVEs on the Chairman's  Reference Paper on SVEs – JOB(06)/164 
(31 May 2006)  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Criteria for defining SVEs 
 
4. In paragraph 3 of the reference paper, th e Chairman notes that the criteria to define 
SVEs are being discussed in other negotiating bodi es.  It is worth noting that the SVEs have 
recently presented a submission in the Negotia ting Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access 
(NAMA4) proposing that countries whose average share for the period 1999-2004 (a) of 
world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent and (c) of world ag ricultural trade does not exceed 0.40 per cent 
should be identified as SVEs. 
 
5. The SVEs would wish to highlight that the vulnerability that characterizes them 
affects their trade performance in the non-agricultu ral and agricultural sectors.  In this sense, 
the same criteria should prevail in both negotia ting areas and we fully endorse the use of the 
criteria submitted in the NAMA Negotiating Group for the agriculture negotiations.  
 What specific provisions should be envisaged ? 
 
8. The level of ambition, which the SVEs are seeking is spelt out in paragraph 8 of 
TN/AG/GEN/11.  In this sense, given the cu rrent stage of the agriculture negotiations, 
provisions applicable to SVEs should be based on the following principles: 
 
• SVEs will contribute less than other devel oping countries in terms of tariff reduction. 
• SPs designated by SVEs should be exem pted from tariff reduction, capping, 
tariff-quota commitments.  They will also have  the right to have recourse to a Special 
Safeguard Mechanism based on impor t quantity and price triggers. 
• Modalities shall provide for substantial impr ovement in market access for products of 
export interest to SVEs. 
6. Chairman's Revised Consolidated Reference  Paper on Possible Modalities on Market 
Access – (9 June 2006) 
 [SMALL AND VULNERABLE ECONOMIES] 
 38. Members with economies defined as small,  vulnerable in [ ] may reduce bound duties 
by [ ] less than those that would otherwise ha ve been required under paragraph 4 above.  Any 
product designated as a Special Product under para graphs 16 to 19 above by a Member with a 
small, vulnerable economy shall not be requi red to [undertake reductions in bound duties,] 
[or] [increase bound tariff quotas] [o r] [be subject to a tariff cap.] 
 39. [Members shall provide enhanced impr ovements in market access for products of 
export interest to Members with  small, vulnerable economies.] 
7. Revised Consolidated Reference Paper on Modalities on Market Access – Contribution 
on the Treatment of SVEs – JOB(06)/196 (19 June 2006) 
 I. S
MALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
 
 38. Countries whose average share for the period 1999-2004 (a) of world merchandise 
trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 
                                                      
4 Circulated as a room document on 10 May 2006. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 14  
 
  0.10 per cent and (c) of world agricultural tr ade does not exceed 0.40 per cent shall reduce 
bound duties by [X
5] percentage points less than would otherwise have been required under 
paragraph 4 above. 
39. In accordance with the Hong Kong Mi nisterial Declaration and the July 2004 
Decision, SVEs will have the right to self-designate  at least [   ] per cent of tariff lines as SPs 
based on criteria of food security, livelihood securi ty and rural development needs.  SVEs 
shall not be required to undertake reductions  in bound duties, increase bound tariff quotas nor 
be subject to a tariff cap with  regards to these tariff lines. 
40. Members shall provide enhanced improve ments in market access for products of 
export interest to SVEs. 
8. Submission on the Treatment of Small Vu lnerable Economies (SVEs) – JOB(07)/47 
(11 April 2007) 
6. In view of their specific situation, SV Es need enhanced Special and Differential 
Treatment (SDT).  This paper builds upon two elements of the previous SVEs submissions 
on:  (a) tariff reduction through the tiered fo rmula;  and (b) Special Products (SPs). 
7. New commitments undertaken by SVEs sha ll reflect consideration of their specific 
situation and their development needs.  Fo r the reasons enumerated above, SVEs shall 
contribute less than other developing countries in terms of tariff reduction. 
8. An examination of the tariff schedules and tariff profile of SVE Members will reveal 
that tariff reduction commitments based on a tiered formula will require disproportionate 
efforts from SVEs because: 
• Some have homogeneous low bindings.  Reduction commitments are likely to 
affect those products that are highly important for their development needs.  Applying the formula cuts is likely to re duce the applied rates of such products. 
• Some have ceiling bindings and/or a high pe rcentage of their tariff lines may fall 
in the highest tiers of the tiered formul a.  This would require them to undertake 
greater efforts in terms of average tari ff reduction and tariff reduction per tariff 
line when compared with the average reduction for developing countries used during the Uruguay Round (24 per cent) and assessed through the lens of the proportionality principle.  
 
9. SPs self-designated by SVEs shall be ex empted from tariff reduction, tariff capping 
and tariff-quota commitments.  Provisions on SPs  are important for the development of the 
agricultural sectors in SVEs, bearing in mind th e key contribution that agriculture makes to 
their food security, livelihood security and rural development. 
10. SVEs fully support the view that SPs s hould be selected and designated based on the 
food and livelihood security and rural developmen t needs of developing countries, guided by 
the illustrative list of indicators submitted by  the G-33.  The right to self-designate any 
product as SP shall not be questioned at any stage of the negotiating processes, including the verification of the schedules of members. 
                                                     
 
5 This figure will be determined in the light of emerging convergence in respect of the level of ambition 
of the overall mark et access package.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 15 
 
 
  11. SVEs are of the view that the concessi ons made in the framework of free trade 
agreements (FTAs) are part of a very specific and particular balance between the rights and obligations of the Members involved in the FTA.  There shall be no requirement that 
multilateral WTO rights and  obligations, resu lting from the Doha negotiations, including the 
self-designation of SPs, be contingent on such FTA concessions. 
12. SVEs also believe that SPs shall cover at  least 20 per cent of the total number of tariff 
lines of a particular Member and that this lim ited percentage of tariff lines should be treated 
according to the following three layers of commitments: 
• At least 50 per cent of these tariff lines will be exempted from tariff reductions.  
For those SVEs characterized by special circumstances6, an additional 15 per cent 
of the tariff lines designated as Special Products will not be subject to any tariff 
reduction commitment; 
• 25 per cent of tariff lines will be subject to a reduction of 5 per cent;  and 
• The remaining tariff lines, other than tho se categorized in the two sub-paragraphs 
above, will be subject to a reduction of not more than 10 per cent. 
13. An outcome that reflects the aspirations of SVEs would contribute to enhancing their 
participation in the multilateral trading syst em, in accordance with their development, 
economic, financial and trade needs.  These enhanced flexibilities will not have any significant impact on world markets, taking into  account the small size of their markets, the 
fact that many of these countries are already highly open and are net food-importing countries. 
                                                     
 
6 Special circumstances include situ ations where a developing country Member:  (a) had bound at least 
25 per cent of its total tariff lines at a maximum import duty of 80 per cent at the start of the implementation period;  (b) had undertaken ceiling binding commitments under the Uruguay Round;  (c) has predominantly low 
income or resource poor producers;  or (d) has any ot her structural difficulties in its agriculture sector. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 16  
 
  IV. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL 
PRODUCTS 
A. C
URRENT MODALITIES DRAFT  
1. Towards NAMA modalities – TN/MA/W/80 (19 July 2006) 
 Modalities7 
 
 The criteria  
  With the exception of developed countries, Members having a share of NAMA trade (exports 
and imports) of less than [0.1 per cent] of wo rld trade for a reference period of 1999 to 2001, 
or best available data, as contained in docu ment TN/MA/S/18 may use the following modality 
for tariff reduction:  
  It is understood that this does not create a sub-category of WTO Members.  
 Chairman's remarks  
 The criteria
 
  There is consensus on the use of this cr iterion to determine eligibility for additional 
flexibilities as a small, vulnerable economy.  
 
 While recognizing that this benchmark establish es only that an economy is small, in terms of 
its NAMA trade, Members have acknowledged the difficulties of articulating additional 
criteria to establish that economies are also vulnerable and can accept the single criterion. 
 
 The proponents have proposed additional criteri a related to agricultural trade and total goods 
(both NAMA and agriculture) trade.  Many Me mbers oppose the use of such criteria, arguing 
that this would create a new sub-category of Members.  I would note, in this regard, that it is important for many Members that the treatme nt of small, vulnerable economies in these 
negotiations does not create a precedent for future negotiations. 
 
 Finally, it was noted that this criterion should be understood as only a "trigger" for eligibility 
– that is, the criterion alone should not define the group of countries that will have access to these flexibilities.  Members will recall that th e proponents do not include all countries with 
trade below this threshold. 
 
 The treatment
 
  There is no consensus on the treatment of small, vulnerable economies.    There are two basic options on the table:  a pa ragraph 6-type solution or a paragraph 8-type 
solution.  The first option
 has two variations, one put forw ard by the SVEs proponents and the 
second by Norway.  The SVE proponents have s uggested a banded approach while Norway's 
proposal is more similar in structure to paragra ph 6, with a single target tariff average.  The 
second option  is to use a paragraph 8-type solu tion, which would envisage increasing the 
flexibilities in paragraph 8.  There are different  permutations of this option including adding 
percentage points to the existing numbers in paragraph 8; removing the trade limitation, 
                                                      
7 In the reference Paper, there is no text in the modalities concerning the treatment of small economies.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 17 
 
 
  combining sub-paragraph (a) and (b), and by extending the implementation period. 
  Unfortunately, I am unable to provide much guidance on this issue.  I would note that one 
factor which has made this discussion difficult is the diverse tariff profiles of the SVE proponents. Beyond this, I can only repeat my view that a satisfactor y contribution from these 
Members can be achieved using either the paragr aph 8 or paragraph 6 approach.  The central 
question, therefore, is how great a contribution is required of these Members. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 18  
 
  B. H
ISTORIC EVOLUTION  
1. Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Treatment of Small, Vulnerable 
Economies in the NAMA Negotiations - TN/MA/W/66 (11 November 2005) 
Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Boliv ia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala,  Honduras, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New 
Guinea, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad 
and Tobago.  
9. As their contribution to the NAMA nego tiating process, small, vulnerable economies 
propose that developing countries, not covered in paragraph 6 and paragraph 9 of Annex B, 
and whose average share in total world merc handise exports does not exceed 0.10 per cent 
over the period 1995-2004,  will be expected to: 
(a) Make tariff reductions not exceeding 15 pe r cent, but with minimum cuts of 
10 per cent on individual lines and with no more than half the cuts at the lowest level of this range.  This contribution will ensure a significant 
reduction of small, vulnerable econom ies' tariff averages as well as a 
reduction in individual tariff lines. 
(b) On the treatment of unbound tariffs, small, vulnerable economies whose 
binding coverage is more then 90 per cent commit themselves to the objective of full tariff binding as an outcome of the NAMA negotiations.  However, newly bound tariff lines will not be subject to reductions through 
the formula during these negotiations.  Small, vulnerable economies are open 
to discuss a possible target rate at which these tariffs should be bound or a maximum rate at which to bind these lines. 
10. Small, vulnerable economies firmly belie ve that only tariff reductions compatible 
with their capacity to sustain trade reforms, as spelt out in this paper, are likely to efficiently 
discharge the Doha mandate.  In this context,  small, vulnerable economies will continue to 
have access to flexibilities such as those outlined in paragraph 8 of Annex B. 
2. Progress Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee – TN/MA/16 
(24 November 2005), also Annex B of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration   
19. A paper was submitted recently by a group of Members which proposes inter alia 
lesser and linear cuts to Members identified by  a criterion using trade share. While some 
developing and developed Members were sympat hetic to the situation of such Members, 
concerns were expressed with respect to the th reshold used to establish eligibility, and also 
the treatment envisaged.  Other developing Members expressed serious reservations about 
this proposal which in their view appeared to be creating a new category of developing 
Members, and to be further diluting the ambition of the NAMA negotiations.  The sponsors 
of this proposal stressed that the small,  vulnerable economies had characteristics which 
warranted special treatment. 
20. This is an issue on which there is a ser ious divergence of opinion among developing 
Members.  This subject will need to be deba ted further.  Discussions may be facilitated 
through additional statistical analysis.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 19 
 
 
  3. NAMA – Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Criteria and Treatment of 
SVEs, submission by the SVEs – (1 May 2006) 
 1. Following the submission of two pro posals to the Negotiating Group on Market 
Access8, and in pursuance of paragraph 21 of th e Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration in 
which Ministers agreed to "establish ways to provide flexibilities" for the small, vulnerable 
economies, the proponents have held a series of  consultations with a number of delegations 
over the past weeks regarding the criteria and tr eatment of the small, vulnerable economies in 
the NAMA and agriculture modalities. 
2. Members of the NAMA Negotiating Group have shown an un derstanding of the 
concerns raised by the small, vulnerable ec onomies and have demonstrated a willingness to 
engage constructively to find solutions that are capable of integrating these economies into 
the multilateral trading system, consistent with the wishes of the Ministers. 
3. A number of issues were raised by dele gations participating in the consultations 
regarding the criteria and treatment of small, vulnerable economies as well as the contribution 
these economies are capable of making to trade liberalisation.  
7. The criteria  for the identification of potential developing country beneficiaries of 
this proposal in the NAMA negotiations, excluding LDC's, countries in transition and paragraph 6 countries, would apply to the remaining countries: 
• whose share of world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent;  and 
• whose share of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent;  and 
• whose share of world agricultural trade does not exceed 0.40 per cent
9 
 8. The treatment  proposed for all developing c ountries who meet the above criteria 
would be that these countries would not be subject to formula cuts, but would bind 
100 per cent of their non-agricultural tariff lines at  average levels reflected in the following 
tiers and bands: 
 
Current Bound 
Average % Average % 
Cut Final Bound 
Average % 
0 – 30 10 0 – 27 
31 – 40 15 26 – 34 
41 – 50 20 33 – 40 
51 - 60 25 38 – 45 
61 - 30 43 - 
 
                                                      
8 JOB(05)/165 of 29 July 2005;  and TN/MA/W/66 of 11 November 2005. 
9 Data Source:  WTO, 1999 - 2004 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 20  
 
   9. Beneficiaries with less than 50 per cent binding coverage shall be allowed to keep 
[5 per cent] of their lines unbound while binding the remaining [95 per cent] at an average of [  ]. 
  10. The implementation of the tariff reduc tion commitments should be staged over a 
longer period than other developing countries in order to ensure a smooth liberalisation 
process and not jeopardise the industrial and so cial development prospects of the small, 
vulnerable economies. 
 
4. Small and Vulnerable Economies - Text Proposal for the Chairman of NAMA by the 
Delegations of Costa Rica and Uruguay – Room Document (30 May 2006) 
Criteria
 
Regarding trade participation of a small a nd vulnerable economy in global trade, the 
identifying criteria should be as follows:  
• Developing countries whose share of world NAMA trade  (exp-imp) does not exceed a 
unique percentage to be agreed as a threshold. 
- WTO Secretariat statistics should be used in  order to determine the specific situation 
of these countries in this area of negotiation.  
- The period of reference to be used should be from year 1999 to year 2004 given that 
year 1999 is already included as the reference period in Annex B. 
 
Treatment  
Once the objective criteria and period of refe rence have been determined, the negotiating 
group should then proceed to negotiate the tr eatment.  Such treatment should take into 
account the following principles: 
 
• SVEs contribution should be significantly highe r than the contribution to be agreed for 
paragraph 6 countries and LDCs.  
• Treatment should be compatible with the NAMA Framework and the Hong Kong 
Declaration. 
 
Proposal  
The treatment proposed for small and vulnerable economies is as follows:  
• Developing countries that have been identifie d by the above mentioned criteria to be 
small and vulnerable economies will benefit from a unique [X] additional percentage 
points to the figure currently in brackets in paragraph 8(a) or  paragraph 8(b)10. 
 
5. NAMA 11 - Non-Paper – Small Vulnerable Economies – (30 May 2006) 
 4. For the above reasons, it is the view of the NAMA 1111 that a solution based on the 
paragraph 8, with appropriate modulation, will provide the much needed additional protection 
for the sensitivities and specific needs of th e SVEs.  In document TN/MA/W/66, the SVEs 
have pointed out that the flexibilities "as curren tly crafted in paragraph 8 are of very limited 
scope ... in addition, the thresholds and conditionalities limit the usefulness...".  The 
                                                      
10 The additional [X] percentage points will depend on  the share of NA MA trade to be agreed in the 
selection criteria.  These [X] percentage points would be higher if the threshold of NAMA trade is lower, and 
vice versa.  
11 Grouping includes Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, South Africa, 
Tunisia and Venezuela.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 21 
 
 
  NAMA 11 agrees that these limitations have to be overcome and ther eby the following could 
be considered as an appropriate solution: 
 
i. Once the number in brackets of paragr aph 8(a) and (b) has been agreed for 
developing countries, additional flexibility  beyond that shall be identified for 
SVEs;  further relaxation of the trade li mitation, in particular, is an avenue 
worth exploring, considering the econo mic situation of SVEs, with a longer 
implementation period;  or 
 ii. The SVEs could be permitted access to  paragraph 8(a) and (b) cumulatively, 
with a longer implementation period.  
 
6. Proposal on Small, Vulnerable Economies by Norway – Room Document (6 June 2006) 
For the purposes of the NAMA negotiations, we propose that developing Members 
whose share of total NAMA trade (imports plus exports) does not exceed [0.1] per cent for the 
time period of 1999-2004 as contained in documen t TN/MA/S/18 shall be considered a small, 
vulnerable economy pursuant to paragraph 21 of  the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  
In the event that NAMA trade data is not av ailable for a Member for any of the years 
in this time period, that Member's share of  total NAMA trade shall be calculated by the 
Secretariat using the best available data.  
We propose that the developing Members who meet the above criteria will bind 
[100] per cent of their non agricultural tariffs.  The average bound tariff level of a Member 
being considered a small, vulnerable econom y will not exceed [X] per cent after the 
implementation period.  In meeting this re quirement, beneficiaries would make minimum 
reductions of [Y] per cent on individual tariff lines.
12 
7. Treatment of Small, Vulnerable Economies in  the NAMA Negotiations, Proposal by the 
SVEs – (15 June 2006) 
4. The following principles have guided the revision of the SVEs treatment  proposal: 
 
• SVEs should not be penalised for the pr ogressive liberalization decisions they 
made during the Uruguay Round, nor should they be asked to accept cuts in 
this Round greater than Members who achieve greater benefits from the 
Round. 
 
• The dispersion in proponent's current bound averages (32.6 to 73.0) demands 
variable cuts to variable final bound averages. 
 
• The treatment  being sought by the small, vulnerable economies should be 
compatible with the terms and mechanisms established in the NAMA Framework (Annex B of the July 2004 decision by the General Council) and 
further mandated in paragraph 21 of th e Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
 
                                                     
 
12 The values of X and Y should be set at appropriat e levels with the objective to ensure that the SVEs 
make a contribution that goes beyond the contribution to be made by the Members covered by paragraph 6. 
The values of X and Y are related.  The more stri ngent the average requirement, the less stringent will 
be the line by line reduction requirement, and vice versa. Mathematically, this implies that the lower X is the 
lower Y will be.  The exact levels of these variables will be determined by Members. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 22  
 
  • This proposal builds on the treatment pr oposed in the Norwegian submission, 
which did receive some favourable responses. 
 
• Full binding at any one bound average is  not easily compared with less than 
full binding at the same bound average. 
 
• There is no justification for all SVEs binding at a lower average than other 
members whose economies are at similar levels of development. 
 
5. Based on data from the World Trade Report 2005, SVE proponents (excluding 
paragraph 6 and LDC countries) have average a pplied rates of 7.6 per cent while paragraph 6 
countries have an average of 13.8 per cent and LDCs 13.4 per cent.  SVEs effort to welcome 
imports is therefore clear. 
 Proposal :  
 6. The treatment  proposed for small, vulnerable economies would be that these 
countries would not be subject to formula cu ts, but would bind 100 per cent of their non-
agricultural tariff lines at average leve ls reflected in the following bands: 
 
Current Bound 
Average % Average % 
Cut Expected 
Final Bound 
Average % 
≤ 37 [….] [….] 
38 – 47 [….] [….] 
48 – 57 [….] [….] 
≥ 58  [….] [….] 
  
7. Tariff reduction for SVEs shall be on the basis of  lower tariff cuts for those in the 
lower bands and higher cuts for those in the higher bands  
 
8. In meeting this requirement, beneficiari es would make minimum reductions of [  ] per 
cent on a maximum of [  ] per cent of individual tariff lines 
 
9. In the specific case of Fiji with less th an 50 per cent binding coverage, Fiji shall be 
allowed to keep [5 per cent] of their lines unbound while binding the remaining [95 per cent] at an average of [  ]. 
 
10. The implementation of the tariff reducti on commitments should be staged over a 
longer period than other developing countries in order to ensure a smooth liberalisation 
process and not jeopardise the industrial and so cial development prospects of the small, 
vulnerable economies. 
    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 23 
 
 
  V. COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SE RVICES SPECIAL SESSION 
1. Services – Information Note (November 2005) 
Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, 
Nicaragua, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadi nes and Trinidad and 
Tobago. 
 
The two-track process involving the CTD and negotiating groups has therefore 
emerged as the process whereby the objective of framing responses to the trade-related issues 
identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading 
system is being pursued. 
Small Economies have already and will conti nue to demonstrate their engagement to 
the services negotiations including through th e tabling of initial and revised offers. 
Taking the above into consideration, issues of concern to small, vulnerable economies 
should be addressed satisfactorily in the service s negotiations in order for these economies to 
participate meaningfully in the multilateral trad ing system in accordance with their level of 
development, market share, vulnerabilities and economic size and structure, without creating 
a subcategory of WTO Members. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 24  
 
  VI. WORKING PARTY ON DOMESTIC REGULATION 
A. C
URRENT STATE -OF-PLAY 
The proposal by the small, vulnerable economi es was taken into account in the Chairman's 
Draft Disciplines on Domestic Regulation - Room Document (18 April 2007). 
B. PROPOSAL BY THE SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
1. Services - Trade-Related Concerns of Sma ll, Vulnerable Economies in the Working 
Party on Domestic Regulation - JOB(06)/66/Rev.2 (10 July 2006) 
Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, 
Nicaragua, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadi nes and Trinidad and 
Tobago. 
 
Small, vulnerable economies r ecommend that the following elements be included in any 
future disciplines on domestic regulation in services.  
III. RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF SMALL, 
VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES  
 
(i) These disciplines shall not affect nor limit a Member's right to regulate, and 
shall not prevent or prescribe the development and adoption of future legislation to meet Members' national policy objectives. 
(ii) Developing country Members shall implement the disciplines that require 
adjustment of existing domestic re gulation and/or the adoption of new 
implementation mechanisms to the extent  consistent with their financial, 
administrative and institutional capabili ties and according to their size and 
level of development.  
(iii) Developing country Members shall be accorded adequate  time frames to 
upgrade their legislative, regulatory, administrative and institutional capacity to implement these disciplines.  Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity-building assistance in order to help developing country Members to develop such capacity.  
(iv) These disciplines shall apply to a Member's  measures only to the extent that 
these affect sectors, sub-sectors and modes of supply covered by the 
respective Member’s schedule of commitments. 
(v) These disciplines shall not prevent a Member from establishing measures or 
mechanisms to support the developmen t of regional economic integration. 
B. Q
UALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS  
 
(i) The establishment of qualification requirements by the competent authorities 
shall not be limited to the recognition and verification of specific diplomas, 
test scores or the like, but shall incl ude where possible, the opportunity to  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 25 
 
 
  fulfil such requirements by the recognition and  verification of relevant  
experience and other education methods for establishing a provider's competence to supply the respective services. 
(ii) To ensure that qualification require ments do not in themselves constitute 
barriers to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity 
building assistance in order to help developing country Members and their 
suppliers meet such requirements . 
C. Q
UALIFICATION PROCEDURES  
 
(i) Fees charged by the competent authorities should not be an impediment in 
themselves to practising the relevant activity.  Developing country Members 
are not precluded from recovering fees where fees are utilised to meet national policy objectives. 
(ii) Procedures for the verification of qua lifications shall be limited to those 
required to establish the minimum qua lifications required for supplying the 
service. 
(iii) Members shall ensure that its competent authorities provide for clear and 
practical mechanisms for recognizing as being comparable, education or 
experience obtained, requirements met, or licences or certifications granted in the territory of another Member.  
(iv) To ensure that qualification proce dures do not in themselves constitute 
barriers to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity 
building assistance in order to help developing country Members and their 
suppliers meet such procedures. 
D. L
ICENSING REQUIREMENTS  
 
(i) Fees charged by the competent authorities should not be an impediment in 
themselves to practising the relevant activity.  Developing country Members 
are not precluded from recovering fees where fees are utilised to meet national policy objectives. 
(ii) To ensure that licensing requirements do not in themselves constitute barriers 
to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity building 
assistance in order to help developing  country Members and their suppliers 
meet such requirements. 
E. L
ICENSING PROCEDURES  
 
(i) Members shall ensure that licensing procedures applied by its competent 
authorities are of minimal complexity and entail minimal costs for meeting 
requirements and fulfilling procedures for entry into export markets. Members may grant reduced licensing and other related fees to service providers from developing country Members.  
(ii) To ensure that licensing procedures do not in themselves constitute barriers to 
trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity building WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 26  
 
  assistance in order to help developing  country Members and their suppliers 
meet such procedures. 
F. T
ECHNICAL STANDARDS  
 
(i) Members shall in reasonable time publish a notice in a publication, print or 
electronic, and notify other Members through the Secretariat, of the 
establishment and application of measures relating to national or international 
technical standards relating to services and service providers. 
(ii) Members shall, where requested, grant other Members, especially developing 
country Members, technical assistance on mutually agreed terms and 
conditions regarding the establishment of technical standards and 
participation in the international sta ndardizing bodies in the area of services. 
(iii) As a matter of good practice, Members involved in the development and 
application of measures relating to pl urilateral standards, and standards 
developed and applied by non-governme ntal standardisation bodies should 
ensure maximum transparency of relevant processes for the benefit of other 
Members.  
G. TRANSPARENCY  
 
(i) Members shall ensure access for servi ce suppliers of other Members to 
relevant information on legislative, regulatory and administrative measures 
relating to qualification requirements and procedures, licensing requirements 
and procedures, and technical standards.  
(ii) Members shall ensure the establishment of appropriate, transparent and 
accessible administrative and judicial channels for reviewing decisions. 
Discussions 
 
• Working Party on Domestic Regulation meeting of 27 March 2006, summary of meeting in 
document (JOB(06)/124). 
• Working Party on Domestic Regulation meeti ng of 2 May 2006, summary of meeting in 
document (JOB(06)/157). 
• Working Party on Domestic Regulation meeting of 1-2 June 2006, summary of meeting in 
document (JOB(06)/226).  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 27 
 
 
  VII. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES 
1. WTO Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines – Architecture on Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines - 
TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2 (13 September 2005) 
Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Domini can Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana, 
Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevi s, St. Lucia, Solomon Islands and Trinidad 
and Tobago. 
 
16. Small, vulnerable coastal states seek appropr iate special and differential treatment in 
any disciplines on fisheries subsidies.  In this regard the following should not be subject to 
subsidies disciplines: 
(i) Any development assistance to developing coastal states; 
(ii) Assistance to artisanal or small-scale fi sheries.  This requires a consensus on 
the definition of artisanal or small- scale.  Some existing definitions of 
artisanal are based on vessel size in metres, capacity in gross registered tonnage (GRT), or area of operation in te rms of proximity to the shoreline.  
We invite discussions on prevailing definitions used by Member States and 
possible approaches for arriving at a de finition for use in the WTO;  to 
facilitate the discussions, the sponsors of  this paper will share information 
with Members on definitions currently being used in their respective jurisdictions; 
(iii) Access fees in fisheries access agreements;  
(iv) Fiscal Incentives - to facilitate the development of capabilities of small 
vulnerable coastal states. 
 17. We propose that the special and differe ntial treatment provisions of the ASCM for 
Least Developed Countries be maintained in future disciplines.   
 2. Special and Differential Treatment in the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations
13:  Views of 
the Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - TN/RL/W/210 (6 June 2007) 
Proponents:  Barbados, Cuba, Dominican Republ ic, El Salvador, Fiji, Guyana, Honduras, 
Mauritius, Nicaragua, Papua Ne w Guinea, and Solomon Islands. 
 
A. INTERPRETING THE MINISTERIAL MANDATES ON FISHERIES SUBSIDIES  
The Doha Ministerial Declaration  states that " In the context of these negotiations, 
participants shall also aim to clarify and impr ove WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, 
taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countrie s".   
 The Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration  noted that there is broad agreement that the Group 
should strengthen disciplines on subsidies in the fisheries sector, including through the prohibition of certain forms of fisheries subsidi es that contribute to overcapacity and over-
fishing, and call on Participants promptly to undertake further detailed work to, inter alia , 
                                                     
 
13 This document is an attempt to respond to the call of the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules for 
brainstorming on S&DT issues and does not preclude th e co-sponsors of this document from submitting any 
additional proposals on these matters.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 28  
 
  establish the nature and extent of those disciplin es, including transparency and enforceability.  
Appropriate and effective special and differentia l treatment for developing and least-developed 
Members should be an integral part of the fish eries subsidies negotiations , taking into account 
the importance of this sector to development priorities, poverty reduction, and livelihood and 
food security concerns:   
 
i. The Co-sponsors of this document are of the view that the Ministerial mandates give 
clear instruction and guidance to negotiators  on the issue of Special and Differential 
Treatment (S&DT)  for developing and least developed countries.  The Hong Kong Ministerial mandate specifically reflects the need for S&DT to be an integral 
component of the disciplines and recognises that  the fisheries sector is of importance to 
developing countries for a number of socio-economic reasons.   
 
ii. With this in mind, S&DT must be more than an instrument to assist developing 
countries to implement the emerging rules, but must also allow developing countries 
the opportunity to take advantage of the na tural resources in their maritime space and 
enhance their level of productivity in the area of fisheries.    
iii. In this respect S&DT in the fisher ies disciplines must be more than longer 
implementation periods and must instead support the development of the fisheries 
sector in small, vulnerable economies and their potential trade in fisheries products and 
must not impede their capacity enhancement,  management initiatives, or the processing 
and value added components of the industry in these economies.    
iv. The co-sponsors of this proposal recognise the environmental and sustainability effects 
of over fishing and overcapacity and are willing to examine possible disciplines which 
seek to minimise environmental and ecological damage so long as they are mutually 
supportive of the developmental priorities of small, vulnerable economies and other 
similarly situated developing countries.    
B. S
HOULD THE PROVISION OF S&DT  BE CONDITIONAL ? 
i. The co-sponsors of this document view S& DT as a fundamental principle of all WTO 
Agreements for developing countries and should be accorded without conditions 
attached.  However, the co-sponsors recognise that given the environmental and sustainability element of the fisheries ne gotiations, there have been proposals which 
recommend the provision of S&DT on the basis of the individual country either acquiring certain management capacity or on ideas such as status of the fisheries and 
total allowable catch. Such conditionality  would depart from WTO principles for 
according S&DT.    
ii. The co-sponsors recognise that there are wi de divergences between the productive and 
trading capacity of developing countries in th e fisheries sector and in the interests of 
sustainability of the marine resources ar e willing to consider carefully crafted 
parameters for S&DT which could meet this objective.  It is clear however that small, 
vulnerable economies, LDCs and some othe r developing countries have had such a 
minimum impact on over fishing and overcapac ity that the proposed restrictions on 
these countries would be unduly punitive and would have the detrimental effect of 
impeding the legitimate growth of their fish eries industry, thereby leading to industry 
regression and stagnation.   
 
iii. An effective management regime for fisher ies is an important co mponent of a country’s 
fisheries policy.  However, it must be recognised that not all developing countries,  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 29 
 
 
  especially the SVEs and the LDCs, have the capacity to enact a management regime 
which can produce statistics, analyse data or secure its waters from IUU fishing to the 
extent that major fishing nations do.  In li ght of this relatively limited capacity, any 
S&DT conditionality in the area of management regimes should not unduly punish these countries for their capacity constraints and should be examined in light of their 
relatively small productive and trading share of world fisheries.   
 
iv. The FAO Code of Conduct has been suggested  as an appropriate guideline for countries 
to follow with regards to their manageme nt regimes and the co-sponsors of this 
document concur that it has many important elements.  However as it is a voluntary 
instrument, the Code of Conduct should not be simply imported into a WTO agreement 
as a binding discipline.  Rather it may be appropriate for developing countries to illustrate the existence of a management plan , either a national management plan or a 
regional management plan.  If the architecture of these plans is found to be significantly 
lacking, the developed countries and interna tional organisations with necessary levels 
of capacity and competence in these areas for improvement should provide technical 
and financial assistance to these developing  countries to enhance their management 
plans.    
v. Environmental criteria such as the level of exploitation of the fisheries species or the 
level of exploitation in certain waters have  been suggested as conditions for developing 
countries to use certain subsidies.  The co -sponsors are concerned about the accuracy of 
data and unwarranted penalisa tion of small economies as a result of the exploitation of 
fisheries species outside of their waters by larger fleets of countries with greater capacity.  The idea of utilising total allowabl e catch as a mechanism is one which must 
also take into account the need to accord flexibility for developing countries as well as 
to safeguard the future growth prospects of their fishing industry.   
 
C. A
RTISANAL AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES  
i. The co-sponsors of this document recogni se that there has been a great degree of 
discussion on this issue within the negotiating group.  Despite this, there does not appear to be any agreement on a definition for these types of fisheries nor how they 
should be treated in the disciplines.   
 
ii. SVEs have consistently stated that th eir domestic definitions and practical industry 
realities do not recognise a clear distinction between artisanal and small scale fisheries. In the majority of cases there is a small profit trade involved in the fisheries and in 
some cases it is part of a small productive ch ain especially in those countries dependent 
on tourism.  These small fisheries may also  be organised into cooperatives and hence 
there could be an economic component to th e fisheries transactions notwithstanding the 
traditional nature of the fishery and its livelihood and food security aspect.   
 
iii. With this in mind the co-sponsors believe that  any definition of artisanal must take into 
account this economic aspect if it is really to  result in any benefits for the developing 
countries.  It has been recognised however th at a cumulative view of small artisasal and 
small scale fishing fleets may result in certain environmental and sustainability impacts and we are willing to further discuss how this impact can be minimised including 
discussions on the assistance which can be provided by relevant international 
organisations and deve loped country members in this area.   
 
iv. Some proposals have sought to use physical  characteristics for determining artisanal 
and small scale fishing and the co-sponsors ar e of the view that any definition based on WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 30  
 
  physical attributes should recognise the following  if it is to take the reality of SVEs 
artisanal and small scale fisheries into account:   
 
• Any definition using the length of vessel should take into account the 
domestic definitions used by SVEs,  
• Allowances should be made for a certai n level of modernisation such as 
engine horsepower of up to 300hp, the u se of navigation and safety equipment and 
mechanised fishing gear as improved technology becomes available.    
v. Socio-economic considerations must also be taken into account if seeking to define 
artisanal and small scale fisheries such as th e importance of the sector to employment, 
food security, poverty reduction and nutrition.   
 
vi. The co-sponsors recognise that the issue of "small programmes" has al so been raised in 
the negotiations.  Any treatment for "small programmes" should be a component of the S&DT for developing countries and its architecture could be based on a level of financial amount, the size of the fleet and/or the share of the country in world fisheries 
trade.   
 
D. O
THER AREAS OF S&DT 
i. The co-sponsors believe that there are other areas in the disciplines where S&DT 
should apply.  These include: 
 
1. appropriate flexibilities for industria l and semi-industrial fishing for SVEs 
2. notification requirements 3. length of time to implement the agreement 4. greater opportunity for consultation before any DSB cases 5. technical assistance and capacity building for enhancing management 
regimes 
 
 The co-sponsors of this document are willing to  continue to work with other members to 
find solutions in these areas whic h take into account the trade, development and environmental 
elements of the fisheries negotiations.   
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 31 
 
 
  VIII.  COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
A. CURRENT STATE -OF-PLAY 
1. Chairman's Proposal for the Text of a Draft Decision – JOB/(07)78 (6 June 2007) 
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND 
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
Decision of xx 2007*  
DRAFT  
The General Council, 
 Having regard  to Articles IV:1 and 2 and IX:1 of th e  Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization ("WTO Agreement") and Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures  ("SCM Agreement ");  
 Recalling that the Members of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
("SCM Committee" or "Committee"), as directed by the Ministerial Conference14 have granted, 
pursuant to the procedures set forth in documen t G/SCM/39, extensions pursuant to Article 
27.4 of the SCM Agreement  of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM 
Agreement  for the elimination of export subsidies, in  respect of certain programmes of certain 
developing country Members;   
 Noting the proposals submitted by those developi ng country Members to extend the 
procedures contained in G/SCM/39;15  
 Recognizing  the economic, financial and developmen t needs, as well as the capacity and 
administrative constraints, of those Members in implementing their commitments pursuant to 
the SCM Agreement  in respect of the elimination of export subsidies; 
 On the basis of  the commitment of those Members to eliminate the export subsidies in 
question not later than 31 December 2015 , with no further requests for extension pursuant to 
Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  beyond those foreseen pursuant to this Decision;  
 Emphasizing  that as from the date of adoption of th is Decision, the procedures referred to 
herein shall represent the sole and unique basis for any extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of 
the SCM Agreement ;  
 Decides  to adopt the following procedures.   
 
 
 *It is proposed that the text of the draft decision, once agreed by the SCM Committee, be subject to a 
Committee decision forwarding it to the General Council with the recommendation that it be adopted. 
                                                      
14 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 10.6. 
15 See documents G/SCM/W/535 and G/SCM/W/537 and addenda.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 32  
 
  PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS PURSUANT TO 
ARTICLE 27.4 
OF THE SCM AGREEMENT OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 
27.2(b) OF THE SCM AGREEMENT FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPING COUNTRY 
MEMBERS 
 
 The SCM Committee shall follow the proce dures set forth below in respect of the 
continuation of extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  ("SCM Article 
27.4") of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement  for certain 
programmes, identified in the Annex.
16   
 
1. Mechanism for continuation of extension 
(a) A Member that wishes to seek a continuation,  for calendar year 2008, of the extension 
under SCM Article 27.4 for a programme liste d in the Annex, shall submit a request 
to that effect to the SCM Committee not later than 3 September 2007.  The request 
also shall include a reference to the WTO document containing the corresponding 
updating notification covering calendar year  2006, which the Member shall have 
submitted to the SCM Committee pursuant to 1(d) of G/SCM/39.17   
(b) Not later than 26 October 2007, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to 
continue the extensions, for calendar year  2008, for programmes listed in the Annex 
in respect of which requests have been s ubmitted pursuant to 1(a) and for which the 
Committee has verified, in its annual review conducted pursuant to G/SCM/3918, that 
the transparency and standstill requireme nts under G/SCM/39 were fulfilled during 
2006.   
(c) As provided for in SCM Article 27.4, the continuation of extensions by the SCM 
Committee pursuant to these procedures shall be  subject to annual reviews in the form 
of consultations between the Committee and the Members receiving continuations of 
extensions.  These annual reviews shall be  conducted on the basis of annual updating 
notifications from the Members in question, as referred to in 2(a).  The purpose of the annual reviews shall be to verify that th e transparency and standstill requirements set 
forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled. 
(d) During the period 2008- 2012 , Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to 
continue the extensions pursuant to these procedures , subject to verification through 
annual reviews as provided for in 1(c) that the transparency and standstill requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.  The "last authorized period" referred to in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall not extend beyond 31 December 2013 , and the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last 
sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall end not later than 31 December 2015 .   
                                                     
 
16 The programmes eligible for continuations of extensions under these procedures are programmes 
providing export subsidies in the form of full or partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under SCM Article 27.4 for calendar 
year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.   
17 At the regular meeting of the Committee in April 2007, these Members were reminded to submit 
their updating notifications by 30 June 2007. 
18 The procedures in G/SCM/39 shall cease to be effec tive upon completion of this  2007 annual review.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 33 
 
 
  (e) A Member receiving a continuation of an ex tension under these procedures shall take, 
from 1 January 2008, the necessary internal steps with a view to eliminating export 
subsidies under the programme before the end of the final two- year phase-out period 
provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4.  These steps shall include 
consultations with relevant government  bodies and organisations and any necessary 
technical and/or legal assessments, as well as a notification to each beneficiary under 
the programme indicating that no export subsidies within the meaning of SCM 
Article 3.1(a) will be granted or maintained beyond the end of calendar year 2015 .   
(f) A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures shall 
provide, for transparency purposes, an acti on plan for eliminating export subsidies 
under the programme, as an integral part of  the annual updating notification submitted 
for the annual review to be conducted in 2011 .19  As part of this review, the SCM 
Committee shall undertake a mid-period asse ssment of each programme for which it 
has continued an extension under these procedures.  During this mid-period assessment, the SCM Committee shall take stoc k of the steps undertaken as of that 
point by the notifying Member pursuant to  1(e), and shall discuss the action plan 
provided by the Member.  
(g) A Member receiving a continuation of an  extension under these procedures may 
request the WTO Secretariat to provide technical assistance for eliminating export subsidies under the programme.   
2. Transparency 
(a) The annual updating notifications shall follow the agreed format for subsidy 
notifications under SCM Article 25 (found in  G/SCM/6/Rev.1).  Beginning with the 
updating notifications covering calendar y ear 2008, notifying Members also shall 
provide information regarding the actions they  have taken pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).   
(b) During the annual reviews by the SCM Committee referred to in 1(c), notifying 
Members can be requested by other Me mbers to provide additional detail and 
clarification with a view to maintaining tran sparency in respect of the scope, coverage 
and intensity of benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes in question20 and 
the form of the subsidies provided thereunde r; and in respect of the actions taken 
pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).  Any information provided in response to such requests shall 
be considered part of the notified information.   
(c) The provisions in 2(a) and 2(b) regarding the submission of updating notifications and 
the conduct of annual reviews shall also a pply to the final two-year phase out-period 
provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4. 
3. Standstill 
(a) Through the end of the fi nal two-year phase-out period provided for in SCM 
Article 27.4, the programmes for which extensions are continued under these 
                                                     
 
19 The action plan shall indicate how the Member intends to eliminate export subsidies under the 
programme not later than the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4, including information as to legislative changes, administrative amendments and/or other 
procedures as may be necessary, and whether any of these actions have been undertaken  or are in the process of 
being undertaken.   
20 The scope, coverage and intensity of benefits of the programmes in question will be determined on 
the basis of the legal instruments underlying the programmes.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 34  
 
  procedures shall not be modified so as to make them more favourable than they were 
as at 1 September 2001, as specified in the notified information previously submitted pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.  The continuation of an expiring programme without modification shall not be deemed to violate standstill. 
(b) The verification of standstill in respect of th e scope, coverage and in tensity of benefits 
(the "favourability") of the programmes sh all be based on the notified information 
referred to in 1(c), 2(a), 2(b) and 3(a).   
4. Product graduation on the basis of export competitiveness  
Notwithstanding these procedures, Articles 27. 5 and 27.6 shall apply in respect of 
export subsidies for which extensions are continued pursuant to these procedures. 
5. [Members listed in Annex VII(b) which reserved rights pursuant to the 
procedures in G/SCM/39]  
To be further discussed in the light of the proposal from Honduras that was considered 
in informal consultations on 4 June 2007.  
6. Final provision 
These procedures shall cease to be in effect  upon the completion of the annual review 
covering calendar year 2015 .  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 35 
 
 
  ANNEX 
 
LIST OF PROGRAMMES ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS  
UNDER THE PROCEDURES21, AND DOCUMENT REFERENCES FOR THE  
EXTENSION DECISIONS BY THE SCM COMMITTEE  
COVERING CALENDAR YEAR 2007  
 Antigua & Barbuda  
•
         Fiscal Incentive Act Cap 172 (December 1975) (G/SCM/50/Add.4) 
•         Free Trade and Processing Zone Act No. 12 of 1994 (G/SCM/51/Add.4) 
 
Barbados  
•         Fiscal Incentive Programme (G/SCM/52/Add.4) 
•         Export Allowance (G/SCM/53/Add.4) 
•         Research & Development Allowance (G/SCM/54/Add.4) 
•         International Business Incentives (G/SCM/55/Add.4) 
•         Societies With Restricted Liability (G/SCM/56/Add.4) 
 
Belize  
•         Fiscal Incentives Act (G/SCM/57/Add.4) 
•         Export Processing Zone Act (G/SCM/58/Add. 4) 
•         Commercial Free Zone Act (G/SCM/59/Add.4) 
•         Conditional Duty Exemptions Facility unde r Treaty of Chaguaramas (G/SCM/60/Add.4) 
 
Costa Rica  
•         Free Zone Regime (G/SCM/61/Add.4) 
•         Inward Processing Regime (G/SCM/62/Add.4) 
 
Dominica  
•         Fiscal Incentives Programme (G/SCM/63/Add.4) 
 
                                                      
21 Programmes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under 
SCM Article 27.4 for calendar year 2007 pursuant to th e procedures in G/SCM/39.  It is recalled that the 
eligibility criteria in G/SCM/39 on the basis of which the original extension decisions pursuant to those 
procedures (for calendar year 2003) were taken for the listed programmes were as follows (footnotes omitted):   
 
"Programmes eligible for extension pursuant to these procedures, and for which Members 
shall therefore grant extensions for cale ndar year 2003 [...], are export subsidy 
programmes (i) in the form of full or partial exemptions from import duties and internal 
taxes, (ii) which were in existence not late r than 1 September 2001, and (iii) which are 
provided by developing country Members (iv) whose share of world merchandise export trade was not greater than 0.10 per cent
21, (v) whose total Gross National Income ("GNI") 
for the year 2000 as published by the World Bank was at or below US$20 billion, (vi) and 
who are otherwise eligible to request an exte nsion pursuant to Article 27.4, and (vii) in 
respect of which these pro cedures are followed."   
 
It is further recalled that, in respect of the above eligibility criteria, G/SCM/39 also provided that:  
"The criteria set forth in these procedures are solely and strictly for the purpose of 
determining whether Members are eligible to invoke these procedures.  Members of the Committee agree that thes e criteria have no precedential value or relevance, direct or 
indirect, for any other purpose."    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 36  
 
  Dominican Republic  
•
         Law No. 8-90 to "Promote the Establishment of  New Free Zones and Expand Existing Ones"  
(G/SCM/64/Add.4) 
 
El Salvador  
•         Export Processing Zones and Marketing Act, as amended (G/SCM/65/Add.4) 
 
Fiji 
•         Short-Term Export Profit Deduction (G/SCM/66/Add.4) 
•         Export Processing Factories/Export Processing Zones Scheme (G/SCM/67/Add.4) 
•         The Income Tax Act (Film Making and Audio Visual Incentive Amendment Decree 2000) 
  (G/SCM/68/Add.4) 
 
Grenada  
•         Fiscal Incentives Act No. 41 of 1974 (G/SCM/69/Add.4) 
•         Statutory Rules and Orders No. 37 of 1999 (G/SCM/70/Add.4) 
•         Qualified Enterprises Act No. 18 of 1978 (G/S CM/71/Add.4) 
 Guatemala  
•
         Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duti es and Other Import Taxes for Companies 
under Special Customs Regimes (G/SCM/72/Add.4) 
•         Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production 
Process Relating to Activities of Managers and Users of Free Zones (G/SCM/73/Add.4) 
•         Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production 
Process of Commercial and Industrial Enterprises Operating in the Industrial and Free Trade 
Zone (G/SCM/74/Add.4) 
 
Jamaica  
•         Export Industry Encouragement Act (G/SCM/75/Add.4) 
•         Jamaica Export Free Zone Act (G/SCM/76/Add.4) 
•         Foreign Sales Corporation Act (G/SCM/77/Add.4) 
•         Industrial Incentives (Factory Construction) Act (G/SCM/78/Add.4) 
 Jordan  
•
         Partial or Total Exemption from Income Tax of Profits Generated from Exports under Law 
No. 57 of 1985, as amended (G/SCM/79/Add.4) 
 
Mauritius  
•         Export Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/80/Add.4) 
•         Pioneer Status Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/81/Add.4) 
•         Export Promotion (G/SCM/82/Add.4) 
•         Freeport Scheme (G/SCM/83/Add.4) 
 Panama  
•
         Official Industry Register (G/SCM/84/Add.4 
•         Export Processing Zones (G/SCM/85/Add.4) 
 
Papua New Guinea  
•         Section 45 of the Income Tax (G/SCM/86/Add.4) 
 St. Kitts and Nevis   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 37 
 
 
  •         Fiscal Incentives Act No. 17 of 1974 (G/SCM/90/Add.4) 
St. Lucia  
•         Fiscal Incentives Act No. 15 of 1974 (G/SCM/87/Add.4) 
•         Free Zone Act, No. 10 of 1999 (G/SCM/88/Add.4) 
•         Micro and Small Scale Business Enterprises Act, No. 19 of 1998 (G/SCM/89/Add.4) 
 St. Vincent & Grenadines  
•
         Fiscal Incentives Act No. 5 of 1982, as amended (G/SCM/91/Add.4) 
 
Uruguay  
•         Automotive Industry Export Promotion Regime  (G/SCM/92/Add.4)   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 38  
 
  B. H
ISTORIC EVOLUTION  
1. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures - G/SCM/W/535 and Add.1 (12 April 2006 and 20 July 2006)22 
 Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, 
St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 
 
 6. The sponsors of this proposal believe that  the objective of "fuller integration of small, 
vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system" (WT/L/579, paragraph 1(d) – 2 August 2004) could be achieved in part by  reaffirming the Article 27.4 procedures and 
extensions within the context of the provi sions of 14 November 2001, Doha Ministerial 
Decision on procedures for Extension under Artic le 27.4 of the ASCM by granting further 
extensions until the year 2018 . 
 
 7. The sponsors of this proposal submit the following  modification to the procedures set 
forth in document G/SCM/39 and call for the preparation of an addendum detailing 
'Procedures for Extensions Under Article 27. 4 for Certain Developing Country Members' 
which would amend paragraph 1(e) of G/SCM/39 to state as follows:  
 
A. ‘Through the calendar year  2018
, subject to annual reviews 
during that period to verify that the transparency and standstill 
requirements set forth in (3) and (4) are being fulfilled, Members of 
the Committee shall agree to continue the extensions granted pursuant to 1(c)’.  
 8. The extension procedures under Article 27.4 would hence be applicable to all of the 
members and the existing programmes referred to in Annex A in line with paragraph 2 of 
G/SCM/39.  This extension process would be ap plicable from the end of  2007 through to the 
end of 2018  with identical procedures as indicated in G/SCM/39 paragraph 1(f) and 1(g). 
 
2. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 a nd 537) – JOB(07)/4 9 (18 April 2007) 
Proponents
:  Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Jamaic a, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and 
Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 
 
Statement by Barbados on behalf of the Proponents of W/535 Add. 1  
at the Informal Meeting of the SCM Committee, 8 March 2007  
 
 
7. This intervention is delivered on behalf  of the proponents of W/535 Add 1. 
8. I understand that you wish to structure the discussions today around three areas which 
you have deemed to be key issues within these discussions and I would hence wish to give a 
                                                      
22 While the proponents of G/SCM/W/535 and Add.1 are small, vulnerable economies, the Committee 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) does not treat this issue as specifi c to small, vulnerable 
economies.  A similar proposal was submitted to the Committee on SCM from the delegations of Costa Rica, 
Jordan, Panama and Uruguay (G/SCM/W/537, G/SCM/W/537/Add.1, Add.2 and Add.3).   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 39 
 
 
  brief overview of some of our bilateral en counters and then make brief comments on each 
subject consistent with the organisation of this session.  
9. At the last informal meeting of the Committee on 15 February we delivered a 
statement that sought to recognise the positive in teraction which we have been having with 
some Members of the Committee and to indicat e the areas where we saw there being some 
form of convergence and also aspects where work was required to bring positions closer 
together.  We are pleased to say that this positive interaction and willingness to engage has 
been maintained although the discussions ar e becoming more precise and substantive in 
nature. 
10. We have also enhanced our interac tion with the W/537 proponents and have 
consequently begun to hold joint bilateral and plurilateral mee tings.  The Members we have 
dialogued with continue to express a willingness to  work towards an April conclusion of this 
matter but we do recognise that there needs to be a narrowing of the gap on some key issues. 
11. Before I speak to the issue of the timefra me, which is the first item on the agenda, I 
wish to reiterate on behalf of all of the proponents that in reacting to our proposals and 
concessions it is important to remain cognisant of the reality of our economies, not only in 
terms of size and vulnerability but also the ab ility and capacity to enact onerously strict 
regulations within a relatively short timeframe.  At the last meeting we stated that the aim 
should be to reach a mutually agreeable e nd point without expecting the proponents to 
undertake actions which would unnecessarily increase the burden on our economies and 
governments.  If a straight path can take us to  the same destination as an obstacle course we 
urge members to give considera tion to the unencumbered route.  
12. We shall continue to meet bilaterally and informally and will indeed seek to enhance 
our level of engagement.  During the last series of  bilateral meetings we held, we floated some 
elements of what we consider could form inte gral components of an eventual decision.  The 
reaction to these elements ranged from clear support for some initiatives, questions and 
clarifications for others and calls for strengthe ned language and provisions in other areas.  The 
proponents have made what we consider to be  serious and difficult concessions but are still 
faced with not knowing exactly what other member s would like to see in an eventual decision.  
Once again we urge members to forward any text or ideas which they feel could address their legitimate concerns.  
The Duration of a Possible Extension of the Procedures in G/SCM/39 
 
13. The Committee would recall that we had re quested an extension until 2018 in our 
original proposal of W/535.  Today we are prepared to make a concession on this aspect of the proposal and move to 2015 which is a request fo r eight years rather than 11 years.  This 
request is consistent with the extension given in the Uruguay Round.  On this issue we should 
indicate that the timeframe is one pillar in this  discussion and should be seen as related to the 
other areas of the negotiations such as the conditions of extension and any commitments 
which the proponents would be requested to undertake beyond that in the original Uruguay decision or in the Doha decision. 
14. We presented this concession during the b ilateral meetings and although some 
members indicated that it was longer than envisioned there did appear to be a willingness to 
positively consider the timeframe in line w ith other conditions of the extension. 
Requirements Applicable during the Extended Transition Period 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 40  
 
  15. On this matter of conditions of the extens ion we remain willing to discuss what the 
priority areas are for members and to receive cl ear and specific ideas on what they would wish 
to see integrated into a final decision.  We have expressed a willingness to integrate technical 
assistance into the decision and have proposed dr aft text reflecting this.  We have also 
expressed a willingness to bring our programmes into conformity with the SCM agreement 
and have also suggested some draft language on this matter.  For us these reflect substantial 
movement from our position in W/535.  Unfortuna tely other Members were not able to meet 
us halfway on these issues and the proponents are currently re-examining their proposals in light of the discussions. 
Whether or not it should be possible for the Members concerned to request another 
extension of the transition period 
 
16. This is a matter that has been raised by some delegations in our informal 
deliberations.  It is clear that this is a very  politically sensitive issue for the proponents and 
other parties.  From our perspective it is difficu lt to demarcate this issue from the fact that we 
are small developing countries seeking flexibilities and favourable consideration of our trade, 
economic and developmental con cerns within a development round.  Any decision on this 
matter has to take these political considerations  into account.  In any event the proponents 
have taken note of the concerns raised by other members although much of our attention will be focused on attempting to develop conditio ns in the transition period which would be 
acceptable to all members of the Committee. 
17. The proponents extend appreciation to all dele gations for their engagement and useful 
suggestions during the bilateral process. 
 
 
Statement by Barbados on behalf of the Proponents of W/535 Add 1
 
at the Informal Meeting of the SCM Committee, 15 February 2007  
 
 
18. This intervention is delivered on behalf  of the proponents of W/535/Add.1 and on 
their behalf I wish to express thanks to you a nd the Secretariat for the work that you have been 
doing to help us to move this process forward.  
19. In that line I would like to focus on our pe rceptions and interpretations of where we 
stand at present in this process based on the bilate ral, plurilateral and informal interactions we 
have held with a number of dele gations who have expressed particul ar interest in the proposal.  
We must express sincere thanks to all of th ose Members of the Committee who met with us 
informally and who always came to the ta ble with a willingness to engage on possible 
solutions to the request for an extension.  Th e proponents have taken note of all suggestions 
and concerns and our hope is that we can duly integrate many of these into a final agreed 
package. We remain open to discussions with an y other members with whom we have not yet 
met. 
20. One of the most important conclusions that  we have been able to draw from these 
encounters is that there is a general consensus to continue and increase the pace of the work on 
the proposal.  The language that we heard in our meetings is no longer couched in 'ifs' and 
'whys' but rather 'when' and 'how'. This is  an achievement for the proponents and the 
Committee as a whole as it illustrates a willingness to find an appropriate solution and reaffirms the fact that we have all b een negotiating this matter in good faith.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 41 
 
 
  21. The second equally important assessment is that there is an understanding that a 
conclusion by April is possible and desira ble and members expressed willingness to work 
towards that target date.  The reasons for this are many, the schedule of the formal meeting of 
the SCM in April, the need for investor conf idence and predictability in our economies, the 
need to avoid any form of legal or logistical  complications regarding the phase out period of 
the Doha decision and more importantly and logical ly the fact that we have all worked steadily 
in the introductory phase, and in the Q and A procedures and we believe that there is enough 
information and technical work on the table,  and enough scope for a mutually beneficial 
outcome, for April 2007 to be the outer limits  of the timeframe for a conclusion.  We 
understand that it is not a difficult task to conve ne the SCM in formal session before April if 
the need arises, hence if a resolution can be reach ed even before the scheduled formal meeting, 
this would be preferable. 
22. Other conclusions that we have drawn from these meetings are that the majority of 
delegations understand our par ticular circumstances and many found the answers provided 
during the question and answer phase as foster ing a greater understanding of the specifics of 
our programmes, the relative 'smallness' of the subsidies offered, and the continued importance 
of these programmes in our domestic reality both fr om an economic and social perspective.  In 
addition it should be recognised that these pr ogrammes are in many cases, policy responses to 
advice from international organisations that ec onomic diversification in SVES is not only 
necessary, but urgent if we are going to ab le to integrate into the global economy in a 
sustainable manner.  
23. It is important that we also recognise that some delegations have indicated that they 
have a systemic interest in seeing tightened disciplines on export subsidies even as they 
recognise the relatively low, if not completely absent, trade distorting effects of our programmes.  A few other delegations expr essed concern based on the possible economic 
impact of our programmes on their economies a nd we continue to be open and willing to 
explore this matter bilaterally, based on any statis tics or studies that may illustrate that there is 
indeed a problem. 
24. The majority of Members have expressed sa tisfaction with the transparency element 
of the current process and as proposed by th e proponents in W/535, wish to see these 
transparency, standstill, favourability and notifica tion elements maintained.  We completely 
agree that these elements have been worki ng as envisaged in the 2001 decision and would 
hence seek to retain these in a new decision on a further extension.  We are of course willing 
to engage on any specific areas where Members may feel the transparency and notification 
elements can be improved but we seek Member s' understanding of our capacity constraints in 
this regard. 
25. The issue of the timeframe was one that was widely discussed during our informal 
encounters and it has become clear to the propone nts that an extension of 11 years to 2018 
(IE 11+2) has not gained enough traction on whic h to move forward.  The date was proposed 
to coincide with what was or iginally requested by the proponents in 2001 and to take into 
account the importance of these programmes to our developmental trajectory.  In the spirit of 
negotiation and the importance of concluding  this process by April, the proponents have 
recognised that there will have to be a compromise on the issue of the timeframe and we are 
willing to do this with the understanding that we  gained during our bilateral meetings, that 
Members would seek to impose stricter cond itions on longer timeframes and less oppressive 
conditions on shorter timeframes.  At this point therefore we should seek to arrive at some 
consensus on this matter, recognising the interre lated nature of timeframe and any additional 
conditions imposed on the extensi on.  We should reaffirm that we see the two year phase out WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 42  
 
  period envisaged in Article 27.4 and in G/SCM/ 39 as an important component of the decision 
hence we don't believe there is any need to negotiate on those final two years. 
26. On the question of possible conditions of an extension, there was also a great degree 
of discussion at the informal level on this.  You would recall that the proponents had called for the conditions of a future extension to be iden tical to those in G/SCM/39 as we felt there was a 
general consensus that they were working well.   However, in the spirit of cooperation and 
given the feedback from these bilateral talks we ha ve realised that there will need to be some 
additional discussion on this issue to accommoda te the perspectives of all delegations.  Yet 
again we seek your understandi ng of our developmental realiti es when suggesting any possible 
conditions.  We have had a suggestion that th e proponents could look at incorporating a 
financial cap on the subsidy amount but there a ppeared to be some understanding, even on the 
part of the members who suggested this, that in  reality this would be difficult to craft and 
implement and would be unduly onerous.  We ha ve heard other suggestions such as a cap on 
the number of beneficiaries and on the inclusion of language which illustrates our intention to 
make these programmes compatible with th e Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures.  These are all concerns that we have taken on board a nd we will continue to analyse 
them technically to determine the practical imp act these suggestions may have.  The matter of 
integrating the provision of technical assistan ce from the WTO Secretariat into an eventual 
decision to assist us in this process is a sugges tion that the proponents would be willing to take 
on board. 
27. There are some additional comments emanating from the bilaterals which we would 
like to suggest as guiding principles for this next  phase of negotiations.  Unduly harsh, strict 
and unnecessary conditions of extension could prove burdensome on our economies and in an 
environment where development is the key, our call would be for any c onditions to be more 
focused on the expected result.  Hence, if les ser conditions could be adopted to achieve the 
same results as harsher conditions, we would strongly recommend that the application of 
manageable conditions be the route taken.  We  believe that conditions can be applied that 
could lead to a resolution for all, without us , as small developing countries, having to renounce 
any legal rights under the SCM or without a process that places unnecessary strain on our capitals. 
28. We also ask that the proponents be rec ognised for their movement on these matters. 
Almost a year ago we proposed what we saw as a simple and workable solution: a 
continuation of the procedures in G/SCM/39 until 2018.  Today we sta nd ready to move on 
that date of 2018 and we stand ready to incorpor ate, within limits, certain conditions that could 
seek to give comfort to our partners.  Although as  demandeurs  we recognise that ultimately 
the responsibility of moving this process along will always lie with us, we do admit that it has 
been difficult to convince our capitals to move from our proposal in the absence of any other 
clear proposals on the table from others.  However,  the signals that we received from most of 
you are clear and we hope that this meeting will lead to an acceleration of the crafting of a new decision for extension of our programmes. 
29. The proponents extend appreciation to all dele gations for their engagement and useful 
suggestions.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 43 
 
 
  3. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 a nd 537) – JOB(07)/5 0 (19 April 2007) 
SVE Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Maur itius, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, 
St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines23. 
 
1. This submission is based on docume nts G/SCM/W/5351 of 12 April 2006 and 
G/SCM/W/5372 of 23 June 2006 and is an attempt to reflect the outcome of the various bilateral and plurilateral consu ltations conducted by the proponent s of this submission as well 
as the discussions in the informal and form al Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures which were held over the period of April 2006 to the present.  The proponents are of 
the view that the submission reflects a basi s for a recommendation from the Committee for the 
approval of the General Council. 
2. The submission amends document G/SCM/ 39 of 20 November 2001 by incorporating 
new legal language which seeks to take into acc ount the concerns of those delegations who 
have expressed views during the informal a nd formal process and illustrates substantial 
movement from the proposals contained in G/SCM/W/535/Add.1 and G/SCM/W/537.  This new language can be found in new paragraphs 1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h)  and 1(i) and in footnotes 1, 
2, 3 and 4.  The original language of G/SCM/39 is retained in the text for ease of reference. 
3. The proponents of this submission have not  changed any of the existing language in 
G/SCM/39 but there is the recognition that additional technical work may need to be 
undertaken to appropriately integrate and reconc ile the new elements of G/SCM/39/Rev.1 with 
the rest of the text. 
(e)
 Through the end of calendar year 2007, subj ect to annual reviews during that period 
to verify that the transparency and standstill requirements set forth in 3 an d 4 are 
being fulfilled, Members of the Committee sh all agree to continue the extensions 
granted pursuant to 1(c).   
(f) During the last year of the period referred to in 1(e), a Member that has received an 
extension under these procedures shall have the possi bility to seek a continuation of 
the extension pursuant to SCM Article 27.4,  for the programmes in question.  The 
Committee shall consider any such requests at  that year's annual review, on the basis 
of the provisions of SCM Article 27.4, i.e., outside the  framework of these 
procedures.  
(g) If a continuation of the extension pursuant to 1(f) is either not requested or not 
granted, the Member in question shall have the final two years referred to in the last 
sentence of SCM Article 27.4.  
(e) Through the end of calendar year 2013 subject  to annual reviews during that period to 
verify that the transparency and standstill requirements set forth in 3 and 4 are being 
fulfilled, Members of the Committee shall ag ree to continue the extensions granted 
pursuant to 1(c).  The Member receiving a continuation of the extension of these 
procedures shall benefit from the final two years referred to in the last sentence of 
                                                      
23 Other non-SVE proponents of this document are Jordan, Panama and Uruguay. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 44  
 
  SCM Article 27.4 with the calendar years 2014 and 2015 constituting this two year 
phase out period.24   
(f) The Committee notes that the Member receivi ng an extension under these procedures 
shall take all necessary internal steps with  a view to bringing the programmes into 
conformity with Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement before the expiration of the 
extension period.   
(g) During the period January 1 2008 through to December 31 2011 the Member 
receiving the extension under these procedur es shall undertake actions at the national 
level in accordance with the commitmen t in 1(f).  These actions may include 
consultations with relevant government act ors and organisations and any technical 
and/or legal assessments which may need to be undertaken to assist the Member to 
conform with 1(f) as well as a communication to existing or future beneficiaries 
indicating the commitments undertaken in 1(e) and 1(f) of these procedures.  
(h) During the annual transparency and no tification process in 2012, the Member 
receiving an extension under these procedur es shall participate in a mid-period 
assessment held under the auspices of the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.25  During this mid-period assessment the Member shall 
provide information to the Committee on what steps it has taken to date and shall take 
to conform to 1(f).  During the mid-pe riod assessment the Member receiving an 
extension in 1(e) shall also provide an action plan for bringing its export subsidies 
into conformity with Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement.26  This mid-period 
assessment shall take into account the devel opment, financial and trade needs of the 
member as well as its capacity and administrative constraints.27 
(i) The Member receiving the extension unde r these procedures may request the WTO 
Secretariat to provide technical assistance to assist that Member to bring its export 
subsidies into conformity with Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement.   
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
24 There shall be no further requests for a continuation of the extension beyond 2015 for the 
programmes contained in Annex 1 of this current decision.  
25 The mid-period review is a transparency exerci se intended to enhance the annual transparency 
process.  
26 This action plan will be submitted for transparency purposes and may contain information as to 
whether legislative changes, administrative amendments or any other procedures are required to bring the 
programmes into conformity with Article 3.1 of the ASCM and whether any of these actions have been 
undertaken.   
27 This will be without prejudi ce to the commitments undertaken  in 1(f) of these procedures .  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 45 
 
 
  (a) Discussions held to date in the Committee on SCM  
• Committee on SCM regular meeting of 25 Ap ril 2006, introduction of the proposal. 
(G/SCM/M/57) 
• Committee on SCM informal meeting of 23 June 2006, procedural discussion. 
• Committee on SCM informal meeting of 21 July 2006, first substantive discussion. 
• Committee on SCM informal meeting of 13 Oc tober 2006, second substantive discussion. 
• Committee on SCM informal meeting of 15 D ecember 2006, third substantive discussion. 
• Committee on SCM informal meeting of 15 Febr uary 2007, fourth substantive discussion. 
• Committee on SCM informal meeting of 8 March 2007, fifth substantive discussion. 
• Committee on SCM informal meeting of 26 April 2007, first text discussion. 
• Committee on SCM informal meeting of 10 May 2007, second text discussion. 
• Committee on SCM informal meeting of 16 May 2007, third text discussion. 
• Committee on SCM informal meeting of 24 May 2007, fourth text discussion.  
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 46 QUESTIONS RECEIVED IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSAL IN DOCUMENT G/SCM/W/535  
 
Members posing questions Members to whom 
questions have been 
posed Canada Colombia Japan Peru United States 
Antigua & Barbuda G/SCM/Q4/ATG/2 G/SCM/Q4/ATG/1 G/SCM/Q4/ATG /4 G/SCM/Q4/ATG/5 G/SCM/Q4/ATG/3/Rev.1 
Barbados G/SCM/Q4/BRB/2 G/SCM/Q4/BRB/1 G/SCM/Q4/BRB/4 G/SCM/Q4/BRB/5 G/SCM/Q4/BRB/3/Rev.1 
G/SCM/Q4/BRB/7 
Belize G/SCM/Q4/BLZ/2 G/SCM/Q4/BLZ/1 G/SCM/Q4 //BLZ/3 G/SCM/Q4/BLZ/4 G/SCM/Q4/BLZ/6 
Dominica G/SCM/Q4/DMA/2 G/SCM/Q4/DMA/1 G/SCM/Q4/DMA /4 G/SCM/Q4/DMA/5 G/SCM/Q4/DMA/3/Rev.1 
G/SCM/Q4/DMA/7 
Dominican Republic G/SCM/Q4/DOM/2 G/SCM/Q4/DOM/1 G/SCM/Q4/DOM /4 G/SCM/Q4/DOM/5 G/SCM/Q4/DOM/3/Rev.1 
El Salvador G/SCM/Q4/SLV/2 G/SCM/Q4/SLV/1 G/SCM/Q4/SLV /4 G/SCM/Q4/SLV/5 G/SCM/Q4/SLV/3/Rev.1 
Fiji G/SCM/Q4/FJI/2 G/SCM/Q4/FJI/1 G/SCM/Q4/FJI /3 G/SCM/Q4/FJI/4 G/SCM/Q4/FJI/5/Rev.1 
Grenada G/SCM/Q4/GRD/2 G/SCM/Q4/GRD/1 G/SCM/Q4/GRD /4 G/SCM/Q4/GRD/5 G/SCM/Q4/GRD/3/Rev.1 
Guatemala G/SCM/Q4/GTM/2 G/SCM/Q4/GTM/1 G/SCM/Q4//GTM/3 G/SCM/Q4/GTM/4 - 
Jamaica G/SCM/Q4/JAM/2 G/SCM/Q4/JAM/1 G/SCM/Q4/JAM /4 G/SCM/Q4/JAM/5 G/SCM/Q4/JAM/3/Rev.1 
G/SCM/Q4/JAM/7 
Mauritius G/SCM/Q4/MUS/2 G/SCM/Q4/MUS/1 G/SCM/Q4/MUS /4 G/SCM/Q4/MUS/5 G/SCM/Q4/MUS/3/Rev.1 
G/SCM/Q4/MUS/7 
Papua New Guinea G/SCM/Q4/PNG/2 G/SCM/Q4/PNG/1 G/SCM/Q4/PNG/3 G/SCM/Q4/PNG/4 G/SCM/Q4/PNG/7 
St. Kitts & Nevis G/SCM/Q4/KNA/2 G/SCM/Q4/KNA/1 G/SCM/Q4/KNA/4 G/SCM/Q4/KNA/5 G/SCM/Q4/KNA/3/Rev.1 
G/SCM/Q4/KNA/7 
St. Lucia G/SCM/Q4/LCA/2 G/SCM/Q4/LCA/1 G/SCM/Q4/LCA /4 G/SCM/Q4/LCA/5 G/SCM/Q4/LCA/3/Rev.1 
G/SCM/Q4/LCA/7 
St. Vincent & the Grenadines G/SCM/Q4/VCT/2 G/SCM/Q4/VCT/1 G/SCM/Q4 /VCT/3 G/SCM/Q4/VCT/4 G/SCM/Q4/VCT/6 
  
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22
 Page 47REPLIES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED IN RELATION  TO THE PROPOSAL IN DOCUMENT G/SCM/W/535  
 
Members posing questions Members from whom 
replies have been 
received Canada Colombia Japan Peru United States 
Antigua & Barbuda G/SCM/Q4/ATG/6 G/SCM/Q4/ATG/6 G/SCM/Q4 /ATG/6 G/SCM/Q4/ATG/6 G/SCM/Q4/ATG/6 
Barbados G/SCM/Q4/BRB/6 G/SCM/Q4/BRB/6 G/SCM/Q4/BRB/6 G/SCM/Q4/BRB/6 G/SCM/Q4/BRB/6 
G/SCM/Q4/BRB/8 
Belize  G/SCM/Q4/BLZ/5   G/SCM/Q4/BLZ/7 
Dominica G/SCM/Q4/DMA/6 G/SCM/Q4/DMA/6 G/SCM/Q4 /DMA/6 G/SCM/Q4/DMA/6 G/SCM/Q4/DMA/6 
G/SCM/Q4/DMA/8 
Dominican Republic G/SCM/Q4/DOM/6 G/SCM/Q4/DOM/6 G/SCM/Q4 /DOM/6 G/SCM/Q4/DOM/6 G/SCM/Q4/DOM/6 
El Salvador G/SCM/Q4/SLV/6 G/SCM/Q4/SLV/6 G/SCM/Q4 /SLV/6 G/SCM/Q4/SLV/6 G/SCM/Q4/SLV/6 
Fiji G/SCM/Q4/FJI/6 G/SCM/Q4/FJI/6 G/SCM/Q4 /FJI/6 G/SCM/Q4/FJI/6 G/SCM/Q4/FJI/6 
Grenada G/SCM/Q4/GRD/6 G/SCM/Q4/GRD/6 G/SCM/Q4 /GRD/6 G/SCM/Q4/GRD/6 G/SCM/Q4/GRD/6 
Guatemala G/SCM/Q4/GTM/5 G/SCM/Q4/GTM/5 G/ SCM/Q4//GTM/5 G/SCM/Q4/GTM/5 N/A 
Jamaica G/SCM/Q4/JAM/6 G/SCM/Q4/JAM/6 G/SCM/Q4 /JAM/6 G/SCM/Q4/JAM/6 G/SCM/Q4/JAM/6 
G/SCM/Q4/JAM/8 
Mauritius G/SCM/Q4/MUS/6 G/SCM/Q4/MUS/6 G/SCM/Q4 /MUS/6 G/SCM/Q4/MUS/6 G/SCM/Q4/MUS/6 
G/SCM/Q4/MUS/8 
Papua New Guinea G/SCM/Q4/PNG/5 G/SCM/Q4/PNG/5 G/SCM/Q4/PNG/5 G/SCM/Q4/PNG/6 G/SCM/Q4/PNG/8 
St. Kitts & Nevis G/SCM/Q4/KNA/6 G/SCM/Q4/KNA/6 G/SCM/Q4/KNA/6 G/SCM/Q4/KNA/6 G/SCM/Q4/KNA/6 
St. Lucia G/SCM/Q4/LCA/6 G/SCM/Q4/LCA/6 G/SCM/Q4 /LCA/6 G/SCM/Q4/LCA/6 G/SCM/Q4/LCA/6 
St. Vincent & the 
Grenadines G/SCM/Q4/VCT/5 G/SCM/Q4/VCT/5 G/ SCM/Q4/VCT/5 G/SCM/Q4/VCT/5 N/A WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 48  
 
  IX. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON TRADE FACILITATION 
1. Regional Approaches to Trade Facilitation:  Enquiry Points - TN/TF/W/129/Rev.1 
(21 July 2006) 
 Proponents
:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Domini ca, Fiji, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, 
the Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 
 
 P ARAGRAPHS 5 TO 10 
 
 Proposal  
 
5. The proposals currently on the table recognize the importance and usefulness of 
enquiry points for providing information to traders and/or Member States the trade regulation of a country.  This submission by the co-sponsors seeks explicit recognition that a regional enquiry point for a group of countries shall al so be accepted and recognized as fulfilling any 
obligation under these provisions.  Notwithstandi ng the proposal, it should be recognized that 
the responsibility for ensuring that the informati on is available to the regional enquiry point 
will remain with the individual WTO Members concerned. 
6. The following language is proposed for in clusion in any draft text which could be 
prepared in the future: 
"Establish enquiry points at the national level or in the case of 
SVEs/developing countries involved in a Customs Union/RTA/FTA, 
the option of the establishment of enquiry points at the regional level, 
to provide relevant information on trade procedures to trade." 
"Members and the WTO, within its competence, shall provide 
technical and financial assistance on mutually agreed terms to SVEs/developing countries to support the establishment, modification 
and maintenance of these national and/or regional enquiry points." 
 Special and Differential Treatment
 
 
7. SVEs/Developing countries/LDCs should have longer time periods to implement any 
requirement on enquiry points.  
8. It should be understood that individual members of the Customs Union /RTA should 
maintain a national enquiry point if it is w ithin their ability to do so but existence of a 
regional enquiry point would preclude the oblig ation to maintain a national enquiry point. 
 Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Requirements  
 
9. The regional approach lends itself to more  effective and targeted forms of technical 
assistance and capacity building and much of the assistance would be directed towards a 
mechanism which would be utilized by all members of the Customs Union/RTA/FTA.  To 
fully exploit the benefits of  a regional approach capacity building and technical assistance 
may also be channelled to the individual members.  
10. The specific forms of technical assistance and capacity building required at both the 
national and regional level would include the following:  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 49 
 
 
  • Audit and compilation of regional trade-related legislation in an electronically exploitable 
format (to be carried out at the national level). 
• Updating model legislation which could ultim ately lead to a harmonising of a regional 
data base. 
• Creation of a regional database with a view to harmonizing and updating the legislation. 
• Provision of translations in Spanish, Dutch, French and English. 
• Provision of security for data transmitted by  the internet from the national governments to 
the regional mechanism as well as the provision of backup data systems.  
• Review and revamping, where necessary, of national and regional trade policy 
communication plans to incorporate all levels of traders (commercial and informal) into 
the information forwarded to the regional mechanism. 
• Creation of websites and the development of interactive software on trade regulation to 
ensure that the national legislation and tr ade policies can be fed into the regional 
mechanism. 
• Training for customs and trade officials in internet publication website data entry, 
monitoring and update of informati on and dissemination of information. 
• Infrastructure for the establishment/conversion/designation of a regional body or for a 
department within a regional body to carry ou t the functions of a regional enquiry point. 
This could include physical construction or  modification of a facility; the provision of 
computer systems;  the hiring of additional dedicated staff, etc. 
 
 Discussions 
 
• Negotiating Group on Trade facilitation Regular meeting of 24-26 July 2006, introduction 
of the proposal. (TN/TF/M/15) 
• The proposal has also been discussed at all informal meetings of the Trade Facilitation 
Negotiating Group. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 50  
 
  X. AID FOR TRADE TASK FORCE 
1. Aid for Trade - WT/AFT/W/18 (15 June 2006) 
 Proponent
:  Barbados 
 
 III. SCOPE FOR AFT   
 9. In general, AFT should cover the following:   
• Trade Policy and Regulations, (i.e. regional and multilateral negotiations, 
standards, implementation of trade ag reements, trade policy and planning);  
 
• Trade-Related Infrastructure (i.e. transport and storage, communications, energy, 
trade facilitation, etc);  
 
• Trade Development (i.e. trade  promoti on strategy and implementation, market 
analysis and development);  
 
• Productive Supply-Side Constraints, (i.e. banking and financial services, research 
and development and innovation; busin ess and other services, agriculture, 
forestry, fishing, industry and mining, tourism etc.);  and  
 
• Trade Adjustment (abnormal adjustment  resulting from severe adverse trade 
shocks). 
  IV. PRIORITY AREAS FOR INTERVENTION 
 
 A. T
RADE POLICY AND REGULATIONS  
  B. T
RADE ADJUSTMENT  
  C. T
RADE -RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE  
 
 D. T RADE DEVELOPMENT  
  E. P
RODUCTIVE SUPPLY -SIDE CONSTRAINTS  
 
V. A PRIVATE SECTOR AID FOR TRADE PROGRAMME 
  29. A special effort should be made to ensu re the involvement of the private sectors in 
both developed and developing countries a nd to connect them to each other. 
 
 30. The scope of a Private Sector Aid Fo r Trade Programme should relate to activities 
capable of supporting private sector efforts to e xport.  The identification of gaps in current 
Official Development Assistance in the trade-related field would be an appropriate starting point. 
  31. The delivery and monitoring of Private Sector AFT programmes should be vested in 
an organization agreed between interested mu ltilateral and bilateral donor agencies and sector 
specific representative institutions on a country basis or, where appropriate, on a regional 
basis.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 51 
 
 
   
 32. AFT participants should aim for a feasibl e programme of assistance that is based on 
professional diagnostic studies and needs assess ments and on arrangements for a monitoring 
system using mutually agreed benchmarks.  Improving coherence and coordination of action 
among multiple donors should also be part of this approach.  
 
 33. An existing international trade-related organization that has a comparative advantage 
in this field, and also enjoys the confidence of developing countries, should be given responsibility for managing the programme.  On the recipient side, the executing agency could be the agreed representative ins titution such as regional development banks. 
 
 VI. VOLUME AND NATURE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT   A. M
OBILIZING ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES  
 
 34. According to the paragraph 57 mandate , additional funding is required.  Between 
1994-2004, development aid has been decreasing as debt relief became an increasing part of 
ODA.  It would be important therefore that curre nt aid budgets are not depleted in order to 
support AFT but rather additional resources w ould be tapped to add "new money" to ODA 
budgets.  
 
 35. The pledges so far for 2010 are promising but the challenge remains to realize 
additionality.  In this respect, it is essential that in finalizing commitments to the provision of 
these resources that long-term sustainability of  the AFT process and predictability in the 
provision of funds are assured. 
 
 B. N ATURE OF AFT  FINANCIAL SUPPORT  
 
36. In order to avoid an increase in the debt burden of developing countries, particularly 
LDCs and small, vulnerable de veloping countries, aid-for-tra de financial support should be 
provided primarily in the form of grants. However, for certain high cost physical infrastructure projects, these could be co-fina nced with long-term concessional loans from 
other multilateral financial ins titutions (e.g., regional deve lopment banks and the World 
Bank).  Such loans should be on terms no less favourable than those of IDA or IFAD. 
  37. Funding should also not involve any burdensome conditionalities.  The latter should 
be limited to monitoring and governance. 
 
 38. With regard to the financial instrument s, there is as much a need for budgetary 
support that is available for sector-wide approaches on a multi-annual basis, as for specific "project financing".  Budgetary support in situations of fiscal imbalance and 
balance-of-payments deficit ensures macroec onomic stability through quicker disbursement 
and a focus on the areas of adjustment most in need. It facilitates the development of projects 
by ensuring the correct macroeconomic environment. 
  C. D
URATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF AFT  FUNDING  
  39. The problems related to supply-side capac ity and trade-related infrastructure must be 
tackled on a sustainable basis.  This essentially implies that projects must be developed and 
implemented over many years and be funded on a multi-year basis.  AFT funds would 
therefore have to be replenished periodically acco rding to an agreed schedule, and procedures 
would have to be established to ensure this. 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
Page 52  
 
   40. Access to these funds would also have  to be guaranteed and predictable, and to 
achieve this purpose, some agreement between  donors and recipients would be needed to 
provide such security.  In this context, some c onsideration could be given to strengthening the 
role of multilateral sources in the provision of the a dditional resources. 
 
 VII. MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE OF AFT  
  A. M
ONITORING MECHANISM  
  41. The role of the WTO in monitoring and evaluating performance of AFT programmes 
should be paramount, and this responsibility c ould be assigned to its highest Council and its 
subsidiary bodies (particularly the Committ ee on Trade and Development).  The Joint 
WTO/OECD Database on TRTA/CB already constitu tes a useful monitoring tool which could 
be further enhanced by improved supervision of  the collection and processing of information. 
In addition, a mechanism would be needed to assess the impact of AFT.  Monitoring should 
permit the involvement of recipients, donors and other interested parties. 
  B. G
OVERNANCE MECHANISM  
 
42. The wide range of bilateral, regional and multilateral mechanisms now in operation 
would suggest that the AFT governance mechan ism should first explore the comparative 
advantage of existing institutions and seek to improve functioning where gaps exists.  
  43. Several forms of assistance suffer from insufficient resources as well as a lack of 
coordination between the institutions managi ng the projects.  These weaknesses should be 
avoided in AFT. 
 
 44. There is need for credible mechanis ms for delivering AFT and ways of improving 
existing national and regional mechanisms mu st be found.  Regional development banks 
should play a key role in this area. 
  45. Any governance structure should ensure WTO involvement as well as provide for 
adequate coordination where gaps have been ob served.  The effective participation of WTO 
Members or their representatives – which agai n could be the regional development banks 
should be assured.  It should also draw into  the process international and regional financial 
agencies, the private sector, bilateral donors along w ith experts, and other interested parties.  
There should be an agreed administrative frame work with agreed principles of management 
and allocation of funds. Institutiona l conditionalities should be avoided. 
  C. E
LIGIBILITY  
 
46. In terms of country coverage, AFT s hould address the relevant needs of all WTO 
developing-country Members with priority to LDCs, SVEs and acceding small developing 
countries. 
  VIII. PROCESSES TO IDENTIFY TRADE-RELATED NEEDS AT THE INDIVIDUAL 
COUNTRY LEVEL 
 
47. In view of the wide variation in countr y situations, a country-specific approach to 
needs assessment will be necessary in order to identify both the priority needs of individual 
countries and the additional assistance required in e ach case.  This effort should take into 
account the needs of the private sector. For countri es that are part of a regional integration  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22 
 Page 53 
 
 
  scheme and would wish their national approach es to be complimented by a regional needs 
assessment approach, the latter should also be undertaken. 
48. For countries that are part of a regiona l integration scheme and would wish their 
national approaches to be complimented by a regional needs assessment approach, the latter 
should also be undertaken. 
49. Aid for trade should allow policy flexib ilities and national ownership as mandated in 
the Paris Declaration of June 2005.  Adopted at the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (March 2005) the Paris Declaration on Aid E ffectiveness has been prepared with broad 
participation from development practitioners , through a process coordinated by the 
High-Level Forum Steering Committee.  The decl aration outlines a set of joint commitments 
and targets for governments and multilateral donor s to reach over the next five years. 
 
__________