RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/M/73 
4 May 2009 
 
 (09-2170) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Seventy-Third Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 13 MARCH 2009 
 
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Shree B.C. Servansing (Mauritius) 
  
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................2  
B. OBSERVERS ............................................................................................................................... ...2 
(i) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers ...............................................................................2  
(ii) Further consideration of the requests for observer status by the League of Arab 
States, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Gulf 
Organization for Industrial Consulting, the Organisation Internationale de la 
Francophonie, the Common Fund for Commodities, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) and th e Groupe de la Banque Africaine de 
Développement.................................................................................................................. ..........2
 
C. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE .........................................................................2  
(i) Communications on the Generalized Syst em of Preferences scheme of Norway 
(WT/COMTD/65 and Add.1 to Add.3) ........................................................................................3  
(ii) Generalized System of Preferences, 200 9-2011 – notificati on by the European 
Communities (WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.4)......................................................................................3  
(iii) Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) notification of Customs Union (WT/REG222/N/1 
and Corr.1, WT/COMTD/N/25, WT/C OMTD/66 and Add.1 to Add.3) ......................................7  
(iv) Consideration of regional trade ag reements involving non-WTO Members –
 statement by the Chairman ..................................................................................................... .12 
D. DECISION ON TRANSPARENCY FOR PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS 
(WT/L/672)..................................................................................................................... ..........13  
E. REVIEW OF STEPS T AKEN TO PROVIDE DUTY -FREE AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET ACCESS 
TO LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES ...........................................................................................15  
F. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND TRAINING ................................................................................15  
- INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE ANNUAL REPORT ON TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING (1 JANUARY 2008  TO 31 DECEMBER 2008) ..................................15  
G. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SUB -COMMITTEE ON LEAST -DEVELOPED 
COUNTRIES ............................................................................................................................... .17 
H. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE CT D .........................................................................17  
I. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................18  
ANNEX I........................................................................................................................ .......................19  
ANNEX II ....................................................................................................................... ......................20  WT/COMTD/M/73 
Page 2  
 
   
A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairman  said that the draft agenda for the 73rd Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (CTD) was contained in document WTO/AIR/3323/Rev.1 issued on 9 March 2009.  He 
indicated that he wished to add two matters under "Oth er Business".  He firstly wanted to inform the 
Committee of a letter that had been sent to him, in his capacity as CTD Chai rman, from the Chair of 
the General Council.  Second, he wished to rai se a matter concerning the CTD's mandate to keep 
under continuous review the partic ipation of developing country Me mbers in the multilateral trading 
system.  
2. The agenda was adopted  as amended. 
B. OBSERVERS  
(i) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers 
3. The Chairman  recalled that, at previous sessions of the CTD, Members had agreed to invite a 
number of intergovernmental organizations on an ad  hoc, meeting-by-meeting basis.  These included 
the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), the Economic Co mmunity of West African States (ECOWAS), the 
Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), the Inte r-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation, the 
Islamic Development Bank (IDB), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the South Centre, the Pacific Islands Forum, the United Nations Environment 
Programme (UNEP), the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) and the World 
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  He said th at, following the decision taken at the previous 
meeting of the Committee, the organizations had be en invited to the present meeting.  He proposed 
that the organizations be invited to the next formal meeting of the CTD. 
4. It was so agreed
. 
(ii) Further consideration of the requests for observer status by the League of Arab States, the 
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting, the Organisation Int ernationale de la Francophonie, the Common 
Fund for Commodities, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) 
and the Groupe de la Banque Africaine de Développement 
5. The Chairman
 said that at previous meetings, the Committee had had before it a number of 
requests for observer status.  He said that if there was no change in positions to extend observer status 
to any of those applicants, then the Committee would take note and would revert to those requests at 
the next meeting. 
6. It was so agreed . 
C. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  
7. The Chairman said that he wished to inform the Committee of the tentative scheduling of, and 
preparations for, the CTD's Dedicated Sessions on Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) in 2009.  The 
Dedicated Sessions would be held to consider th ree RTAs that had recently been notified under the 
Enabling Clause.  It was firstly envisaged that the Pakistan-Sri Lanka Agreement would be considered 
at the CTD's 2nd Dedicated Session, which was tentatively scheduled to be held on 14 and 15 July, 
back to back with the Regular Session of the CTD.   On this Agreement, he said that the draft 
Secretariat Factual Presentation had been sent to  the Parties on 20 February, for comments by 
20 March – within a four-week period.  If this sch edule was met, the Factual Presentation would be  WT/COMTD/M/73 
 Page 3 
 
 
  circulated to Members by 5 May at the latest.  He urged the Parties to try to send their joint comments 
to the Secretariat on time.  He next informed the Committee that the Paki stan-Malaysia Agreement 
would be considered at the 3rd Dedicated Session on 15 and 16 September.  This Dedicated Session 
would be held back to back with a meeting of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA).  
With regard to the preparation of the Factual Pr esentation on the Pakistan-Malaysia Agreement, he 
said that the Secretariat had asked the Parties for clarification on some data issues.  He urged the 
Parties to send their responses as soon as possible to  the Secretariat so that the draft Factual 
Presentation could be sent to them for comments by the deadline of 20 April.   Finally, he said that the 
Chile-India Agreement was to be considered at the CTD's 4th Dedicated Session, which was 
tentatively scheduled to be held on 3 and 4 December,  back to back with the Regular Session of the 
CTD.  The Secretariat was currently waiting to recei ve the necessary data from the Parties.  The data 
was expected to be provided by 4 June at the latest .  He indicated that further updates on RTAs to be 
considered in Dedicated Sessions of the CTD w ould be provided to the Committee as necessary. 
(i) Communications on the Generalized Syst em of Preferences scheme of Norway 
(WT/COMTD/65  and Add. 1 to Add .3) 
8. The Chairman  recalled that Norway had made a notification at the 69th Session of the CTD 
concerning its Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) scheme.  Two sets of questions from Brazil on the scheme had been circulated in documen ts WT/COMTD/65 and WT/COMTD/65/Add.2.  
Responses to Brazil's questions were circulated by Norway in documents WT/COMTD/65/Add.1 and 
Add.3.  It had been agreed at the last CTD meeti ng that this item would remain on the agenda for the 
present meeting. 
9. The representative of Brazil
 thanked Norway for its constr uctive and open attitude during the 
bilateral consultations that had b een held with his delegation on this matter.  The replies provided by 
Norway had permitted a better understanding of Norway's GSP scheme and its rules.  
10. The representative of Norway  said that her delegation had e ngaged in constructive dialogue 
with Brazil, in the context of which Norway had pr ovided additional information and clarifications on 
its GSP scheme.  She informed the Committee that  her delegation was still waiting for some further 
clarifications from capital.  She hoped that the in formation provided would soon be satisfactory to 
Brazil, so that this item could be taken off the CTD's agenda. 
11. The Chairman  inquired whether Brazil wanted this  item to remain on the CTD's agenda. 
12. The representative of Brazil  confirmed that his delegation wi shed to retain this item on the 
agenda.  
13. The Chairman  proposed that the Committee take note of all interventions.  The item would 
remain on the agenda for the CTD's next meeting.   
14. It was so agreed . 
(ii) Generalized System of Preferences, 2009-20 11 – notification by the European Communities 
(WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.4 ) 
15. The Chairman  said that the EC's notification of its GSP scheme for the years 2009 to 2011 
had been circulated in document WT/COMTD/N/4/Add. 4.  He invited the representative of the EC to 
introduce the notification. 
16. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC was notifying its new GSP 
scheme, which had entered into force on 1 Janua ry 2009.  The notification had been made on WT/COMTD/M/73 
Page 4  
 
  4 March 2008, but the document containing the notifi cation had been circulated, with a slight delay, 
on 12 March.  He explained that the WTO Secret ariat had had to reformat some parts of the 
notification document in order to make it compatible  with WTO standards.  An advance copy of the 
document had, however, been provided to all Me mbers.  He said that the document contained a 
number of elements besides the notification itself.  These included the legal texts – notably a Council 
Regulation, and a Commission Decision on the list of  beneficiaries of the special arrangement for 
sustainable development and good governance ("GSP-pl us") – a guide to internet resources, and a 
series of annexes.  The annexes provided data on total imports from GSP beneficiary countries, which 
were broken down by imports entering under the GSP, imports under other preferential schemes 
where applicable, imports under a zero-duty Most-Fa voured-Nation (MFN) rate, and dutiable imports.  
Also included in the annexes was information on th e top beneficiaries of the scheme, and the top 
products by section and chapter of the Harmonize d System (HS).  Information was additionally 
provided on the details underpinning  the graduation calculations.   
17. He said that, prior to the present meeting, th e EC had organized an informal presentation 
session on its GSP scheme, to which all interested delega tions had been invited.  He explained that the 
EC had thought it useful to hold such an event in or der to allow an elaborate and detailed presentation 
of its GSP scheme, and to permit sufficient time fo r questions and answers.  Representatives from the 
EC's headquarters in Brussels – including a GSP st atistician and a member of the chief economist’s 
team – were present, and were also available for bila teral meetings after the event.  He said that the 
informal session, as well as the high degree of deta il provided in the annexes of the notification 
document, were a testimony to the EC's commitmen t to ensuring transparency in its preferential 
regimes.  He indicated in this regard that the EC was closely involved in th e discussions in the CTD to 
strengthen the transparency of preferential tr ade arrangements (PTAs).  Negotiations on a 
Transparency Mechanism (TM) for PTAs were ongoing, and such a Mechanism was not as yet 
binding on Members.  Nevertheless, the EC had notif ied its new GSP scheme in the spirit of the new 
TM, notably through the information provided in the various statistical annexes.  
18. Given that an extensive presentation had been ma de at the informal session, he said that he 
would limit himself at the present meeting to highlighting the main elements of the EC's GSP scheme.  He said that the scheme was launched in 1971, and was the most widely used of all GSP schemes.  It 
had been progressively expanded, and the valu e of preferential imports under the scheme had 
continued to increase, reaching €58.6 billion in 2 007.  The scheme had also been effective in 
promoting exports from those countries that needed it the most, notably the least-developed countries 
(LDCs) and the vulnerable GSP-plus beneficiary countries.  With the objectives of predictability, 
stability and transparency, the new scheme for 200 9 to 2011 maintained the main principles and 
features of its predecessor scheme, which expired at  the end of December 2008.  Notably, the new 
scheme was based on three arrangements:  the gene ral arrangement, the GSP-plus arrangement and 
the Everything But Arms (EBA) arrangement for LDCs.  
19. The general arrangement had a product coverage of 6,244 products, split into sensitive and 
non-sensitive products.  Non-sensitive products, which accounted for about 3,200 lines, entered duty 
free.  Sensitive products benefited from a tari ff reduction below the MFN rate.  In the case of 
ad valorem  duties, the reduction amounted to 3.5 percen tage points.  For textiles, a reduction of 
20 per cent relative to the MFN rate was offered.  In the case of specific duties, a reduction of 30 per cent applied.  The GSP-plus had a slightly  higher product coverage  of 6,336 products, and 
offered additional, more generous, preferences to its beneficiaries.  Finally, the EBA arrangement 
covered 7,140 products, all of whic h entered duty free.  In the context of the EBA arrangement, it was 
worth noting that as of 1 October 2009, the arrangement would grant 100 per cent duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) market access for all products fr om all LDCs, except for arms and ammunition.  
This was in light of the expiry of the transitional provisions concerning the imports of rice and sugar.  
He expressed his delegation's hope that this would encourage other developed countries, and 
developing countries in a position to do so, to s how a similar degree of  generosity to LDCs.  WT/COMTD/M/73 
 Page 5 
 
 
  20. On the GSP-plus arrangement, he recalled th at it had been mentioned at previous CTD 
meetings that countries wishing to apply for the ad ditional benefits needed to have submitted their 
application by the deadline of 31 October 2008.  The criteria to be considered  vulnerable and eligible 
for the purposes of the GSP-plus remained unchange d relative to the previous scheme, with the 
exception that all 27 conventions listed in the a nnex to the Council Regulation now needed to be 
ratified and implemented.  The Commission had duly examined all the applications received and had 
established the list of GSP-plus beneficiaries on 8 December 2008.  The list of 16 countries included 
three new beneficiaries, namely Armenia, Azerba ijan and Paraguay.  He observed that a significant 
novelty of the new arrangement was that a mid-term  window for applications had been introduced.  
This meant that interested countries that had not  yet applied for the arrangement, or had not yet 
ratified or implemented all conventions by the 2008 deadline, would have a second opportunity to 
apply.  In particular, applications could be subm itted by 30 April 2010, in order to be granted the 
GSP-plus benefits from 1 July 2010. 
21. He said that an important feature of any GSP scheme was its graduation mechanism.  Such a 
mechanism removed preferences for countries that had established a sufficient level of 
competitiveness, and allowed the preference-giving Member  to target its scheme to those that needed 
it most.  Under the EC's GSP scheme, graduation to ok place when the three-year average of covered 
imports for a given HS section from a given country exceeded 15 per cent of the same covered imports from all beneficiary countries.  Similarly,  when the calculation showed that the average 
percentage fell below that threshold, graduation was removed and preferences were re-established.  
Calculations, which were made using Eurostat da ta, were based on the three most recent years for 
which data were available.  For the new schem e, the legislative process had required that the 
calculations be done in 2007, which required th e use of 2004, 2005 and 2006 as reference years.  
Following the calculations, preferences had been re -established for the 2009 to 2011 period for six 
countries – Algeria, India, Indonesia, Russia, Sout h Africa, and Thailand.  Only one new graduation 
occurred, which resulted in preferences being removed for Vietnamese footwear.  
22. On the issue of product coverage under the EC's GSP scheme, he noted that more than 
2,400 product lines already carried a zero MFN rate.  In this light, he observed that the preferences 
offered under the scheme came on top of a trade regime that was already very open.  In value terms, 
64 per cent of imports from all GSP beneficiary countries entered at a zero MFN rate in 2007.  If bilateral preferential schemes were included in the ca lculations, 68 per cent of total imports from GSP 
beneficiary countries entered the EC market duty fr ee.  Since the EC's GSP scheme was not the only 
framework governing trade relations between the EC  and developing countries, he said that the 
scheme should be seen in the context of the overa ll trade openness of the EC's trade regime.  For 
example, imports from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries were now governed by 
interim or full Economic Partnershi p Agreements, which granted more preferential conditions than the 
GSP scheme.  In addition, the EC had a number of bilateral or regional free trade agreements (FTAs) 
with other developing countries – for example, w ith Chile, Mexico, South Africa and countries in the 
Mediterranean region – offering them additional market access on top of the GSP preferences.  
23. In this light, the EC had consistently held the view that it was essential to assess the combined 
effects of its multilateral, bilateral and autonom ous trade policy instruments.  The data on total 
imports in Annex IV of the notification document we re, therefore, presented in such a way as to allow 
an appreciation of the aggregated effect.  Annex V presented the data in a similar fashion, but further 
broken down by HS product sections for the top 20 beneficiaries of the GSP scheme.  Annex VI 
provided insight into the top products imported under the scheme, by HS section and chapter.  His delegation believed that these data went a long way in demonstrating the deve lopmental benefits of 
the scheme.  He noted, in particular, that the top products imported under th e scheme were textiles, 
some small manufacturing, as well as a high degree of processed agricultural products.  All these were 
typically labour-intensive products of high importance to the economies of many developing 
countries. WT/COMTD/M/73 
Page 6  
 
  24. Learning from best practices in recent GSP notifi cations by the United States, he said that the 
EC had also provided in Annex III of the notifi cation document a guide to internet resources 
concerning the scheme.  He added that the Powe rPoint presentation that had been made at the 
informal information session would be posted on th e GSP web-pages of the Commission’s website.  
Finally, he informed the Committee that Eurost at was making significant efforts to improve the 
timeliness and quality of trade data.  To this end, it was expected that a new Regulation would enter 
into force starting from January 2010.  He conclude d by observing that the notification document was 
long, but also self-explanatory.  In view of the fact  that the document had been circulated at fairly 
short notice, he recognized that Members might need  more time to go through all the details.  He 
indicated, however, that his delegation was available to answer to the best of  its abilities any questions 
Members might have at this stage. 
25. The representative of Brazil
 welcomed the notification and the intervention by the EC.  His 
delegation expected the EC's GSP scheme to come  as a positive response to the development, trade 
and financial needs of its beneficiaries, and to be  fully compliant with the requirements and rules of 
the Enabling Clause.  He additionally welcomed th e EC's initiative to hold an informal session on the 
scheme prior to the present meeting, without prejudi ce to formal discussions in the CTD.  He noted 
with appreciation that the EC had made efforts to  make its notification along the lines of the draft 
proposal for a TM for PTAs.  Brazil received this as  a positive signal in support  of transparency.  He 
remarked, however, that no notification could pre-ju dge the outcome of the negotiations on the PTAs 
TM.  
26. He said that the EC's notification document was under review by the relevant authorities in 
Brazil.  Due to the short time that had elapsed since the notification, as well as to the length and 
complexity of the notification document, a final an alysis had not yet been completed.  He, however, 
wished to pose a preliminary query to the EC re garding possible differentiation or discrimination 
between developing countries in the application requirements for the GSP-plus arrangement.  He 
observed, in particular, that a possible outcome of the stipulated deadlines to apply for benefits under 
the arrangement might be that potential beneficiarie s would be denied inclusion in the arrangement 
simply on the basis of a missed deadline.  Hi s delegation would appreciate any comments from the 
EC on this particular issue.  He added that Brazil wi shed to reserve the right to bring the issue to the 
CTD at a later stage, if necessary, with comments and questions on the GSP scheme. 
27. The representative of Colombia  said that his country was a beneficiary of both the general 
arrangement and the GSP-plus arrangement.  Colomb ia's trade relations with the EC were based on 
the GSP.  The GSP-plus arrangement provided tariff preferences to products falling under around 
6,400 tariff lines with duty-free access to the EC mark et.  Fruit, vegetables, flowers, lyophilized 
coffee, fishery products, agro-industrial products, ch emicals, plastics, textiles and made-up articles, 
leather goods and, in general, almost all of Colo mbia's industrial goods entered the EC market duty 
free.  One notable exception was bananas, with regard to which Colombia continued to seek a 
mutually acceptable solution consistent with the WTO Agreements and jurisprudence.  In 2007, the 
EC became Colombia's second largest trading partner, ahead of the Andean Community and 
Venezuela.  Trade flows between the EC and Colo mbia totalled €4,093 million, with a surplus of 
€1,071 million for Colombia.  A total of 22 per cent of Colombian exports to the EC benefited from 
tariff preferences.  Furthermore, the EC was the se cond largest foreign investor in Colombia, with 
investments of over €717 million.  Colombia welcomed  the efforts by the EC to continue to offer a 
GSP scheme to developing countries.  He noted that the GSP was created on the recommendation of 
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) more than 40 years ago, and was consistent with the Enabling Clause and other WTO rules.  The EC's GSP scheme was based on 
clear, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria.  As  a beneficiary country, Colombia was ready to 
cooperate in all matters relating to the review of the implementation of the EC's GSP scheme.  WT/COMTD/M/73 
 Page 7 
 
 
  28. The representative of Pakistan  expressed appreciation for the informal session that the EC had 
organized to present its GSP scheme.  The event wa s a positive step towards enhanced transparency, 
and had allowed a better understanding of the technical aspects of the scheme.  On the GSP-plus 
arrangement, he noted that Pakistan had in the past  had some concerns.  A positive development in the 
new arrangement was the possibility of mid-point en try.  In this regard, he enquired whether the 
criteria for entry at the mid-point would be th e same as those applied at the beginning of the 
arrangement, or whether different criteria would be applied.  He observed that his delegation had not 
yet been able to consider the EC's notificati on document in detail, and requested that the CTD 
continue its consideration of the notification at its next meeting. 
29. The representative of th e European Communities  said that his delegation had taken note of 
the comments that had been made.  On the query from Pakistan, he indicated that the mid-point 
eligibility criteria for the GSP-plus arrangement were the same as those that ha d been used to identify 
the countries that were currently benefiting from the arrangement.  He added, however, that the 
vulnerability calculations were to be based on data for the three preceding years.  For the mid-point 
calculations, the data to be used were those avai lable on 1 September 2009, wh ich in practice entailed 
the use of 2006, 2007 and 2008 data.    
30. The Chairman  proposed that the Committee take note of  all interventions.  He noted that there 
had been a request to continue discussions on the EC's  notification at the next meeting.  This item 
would, therefore, remain on the CTD's agenda.  
31. It was so agreed . 
(iii) Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) notification of Customs Union ( WT/REG222/N/1  and Corr.1 , 
WT/COMTD/N/25 , WT/COMTD/66  and Add.1 to Add.3) 
32. The Chairman  recalled that the Committee had been discussing over a number of meetings 
the matter of the change in the notificati on status of the GCC Customs Union from GATT 
Article XXIV to the Enabling Clause.  The discussi on had been taking place under "Other Business".  
The present item had been placed on the CTD's agenda at  the request of the United States.  He invited 
the US representative to take the floor. 
33. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation continued to be concerned 
about the change in the notification of the GCC Cu stoms Union to be exclus ively under the Enabling 
Clause.  The US encouraged the GCC countri es to re-notify their customs union under GATT 
Article XXIV, as had been initially done.  Furtherm ore, the US did not support moving forward with 
the process of reviewing the agreement under the TM for RTAs until this matter was resolved. 
34. She said that her delegation wanted to respond in detail to the most recent communication 
from the GCC on this matter, which had been circ ulated in document WT/COMTD/66/Add.3.  Any 
future discussion would take place in the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA).  She indicated that the document did not satisfy her dele gation's concerns.  In paragraph 7 of the document, 
the GCC asserted – with respect to paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause – that the fact that Members 
had not found it necessary to prescribe criteria or conditions for the reduction or elimination of 
non-tariff measures did not eliminate such measures from the coverage of the Enabling Clause.  The 
US strongly disagreed with this assertion.  The En abling Clause authorized reciprocal arrangements 
among developing countries only for the reduction or  elimination of tariffs.  Non-tariff barriers 
(NTBs) could be eliminated on a reciprocal basi s only where the General Council had established the 
conditions for such elimination, which it had not yet done.   
35. The distinction in the treatment of tariffs and NT Bs followed naturally from the fact that tariff 
elimination was a relatively verifiable action base d on a review of a country’s tariff schedule.  WT/COMTD/M/73 
Page 8  
 
  However, given the well-recognized co mplexity and general lack of transparency in the area of NTBs 
at the time the Enabling Clause was adopted, it ma de sense that the GATT Contracting Parties had 
wanted to establish the criteria or conditions that would govern the elimination of NTBs in regional 
agreements entered into under the Enabling Clause.  Contrary to the GCC's view, this understanding 
did not nullify paragraph 2(c), but instead properly ensured the fulfilment of the intentions of the 
Contracting Parties at the time the Enabling Clause was adopted.  As such, her delegation did not see 
how paragraph 2(c) could be  interpreted to grant a carte blanche  application of the Enabling Clause to 
agreements eliminating NTBs.  The US, therefore, rejected the GCC’s arguments in paragraph 7 of 
the document. 
36. In paragraph 9 of the document, she welcomed what appeared to be an agreement with her 
delegation's view that – as reinforced by the excer pt from the Secretariat’s Legal Note – the Enabling 
Clause applied only to Article I of GATT 1994, and that nothing under the Enabling Clause could exempt a Member from an Article II violation.  In line with the Secretariat’s Legal Note – as cited by 
the GCC – she observed that if the formation of a customs union should lead to the breaking of a Party’s WTO tariff bindings, that Party's violation of Article II would not be excused unless the 
customs union were covered by Article XXIV.  As  some GCC countries appeared to be exceeding 
their WTO bindings in the application of the GCC’s common external tariffs,
 her delegation continued 
to encourage the GCC to promptly notify its customs union under Article XXIV. 
37. With respect to paragraph 10 of the GCC’s document, she fully agreed that agreements 
entered into under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabli ng Clause could be notified to the CTD.  Her 
delegation had never suggested otherwise.  Ho wever, notifying an agreement to the CTD was 
appropriate only where the agreement could reas onably be said to qualify as an Enabling Clause 
agreement.  The GCC agreement plainly went be yond the reduction or elimin ation of tariffs, and 
therefore beyond the scope of paragraph 2(c).  Equally important, the GCC countries had not 
contested - and indeed they could not contest in all reasonableness - the fact that the GCC common 
external tariffs exceeded some of their tariff bindi ngs, an action which plainly could not be justified 
by the Enabling Clause.  Under th ese circumstances, the US continued to strongly doubt that the GCC 
Customs Union fell within the parameters of the Enabling Clause, and as such, continued to request 
that the agreement be reviewed in the CRTA.   
38. On paragraph 12 of the document, she noted her delegation's agreement with the Panel's 
findings in EC – Tariff Preferences .  In particular, her delegation believed that the Enabling Clause 
was one of the most important instruments in the GATT and the WTO – given its critical role in 
authorizing differential and more favourable treat ment for developing countries – and that it was 
important to be particularly cautious in the interp retation of its provisions.  The US believed that a 
cautious interpretation would promote non-discrim ination and increased transparency over the 
expansion of discrimination to cover undefined NTBs .  It appeared that the GCC countries had been 
striving to interpret the provisions of the Enabling Cl ause in a manner that would allow them an even 
greater ability to discriminate against those that we re not GCC Parties – not just developed countries, 
but developing countries as well.  The Enabling Clause allowed for only a narrow form of discrimination under paragraph 2(c), and efforts to expand this interpretation to allow for further 
forms of discrimination would harm all WTO Member s.  However, it was likely to harm the GCC's 
neighbours - all of which were developing or least-developed countries - most of all.   
39. In addition to the arguments that had been ma de encouraging the GCC countries to re-notify 
their customs union to the CRTA, the US believ ed that it was important to note the specific 
commitments Saudi Arabia and Oman had made to  observe the provisions of Article XXIV of the 
GATT 1994 in their Working Party Reports on thei r accession to the WTO.  Paragraph 314 of 
Saudi Arabia's Working Party Report stated that Saudi Arabia "would observe the provisions of the 
WTO, including Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Ar ticle V of the GATS, in its trade agreements, 
and would ensure that the provisions of these WT O Agreements for notification, consultation and  WT/COMTD/M/73 
 Page 9 
 
 
  other requirements concerning free trade areas and customs unions of which Saudi Arabia was a 
member were met from the date of accession".  The report further stated that "Saudi Arabia would, upon accession, submit notifications and copies of the GCC Customs Union and the Arab League Free Trade Area for review by the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements".  Likewise, paragraph 156 of Oman's Working Party Report stat ed that Oman "would observe the provisions of 
Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Article V of  the GATS in its trade agreements, and would 
ensure that the provisions of these WTO agreem ents for notification, consultation and other 
requirements concerning free trade areas and customs unions of which Oman was a member were met from the date of accession".  The US called upo n the GCC countries to fulfil their accession 
commitments and rightly re-notify the GCC Cust oms Union to the CRTA in accordance with the 
obligations of Article XXIV of GATT 1994.  In clos ing, she once again maintained that any future 
discussion of this issue should take place in the CRTA. 
40. The representative of Oman, on behalf of the GCC countries
, said that the issue before the 
Committee was purely procedural, as it concerned th e basis for the notification of the GCC Customs 
Union and the forum in which it should be review ed.  The GCC believed that a discussion on the 
substance of the agreement could be addressed durin g the review process.  The GCC had made clear 
on previous occasions, including th rough its communication circulat ed in document WT/COMTD/66, 
that the Enabling Clause provided a proper basis fo r the notification of trade agreements among 
developing countries.  He pointed out that all GCC members were developing countries.  
41. It had additionally been made clear by the GCC countries that their customs union was fully 
consistent with GATT Article XXIV.  The GCC was, of course, aware of the concerns raised by some 
delegations that a notification under the Enabling Cl ause rather than Article XXIV somehow implied 
that the obligations under Article XXIV were not releva nt to the agreement.  It was not the intention 
of the GCC to evade any of the obligations deri ving from Article XXIV.  However, the GCC was 
somewhat puzzled by the insistence of certain dele gations that Article XXIV was the only permissible 
basis for the notification of customs unions.  Ther e was no textual support for such a position in the 
TM for RTAs, the Enabling Clause or Article XXIV .  Moreover, a number of customs unions among 
developing countries in addition to the GCC Cu stoms Union had been notified under the Enabling 
Clause. 
42. He said that the GCC had been in consultations  recently with delegations that had expressed 
interest in the matter.  This had been a useful pr ocess.  Delegations had been able to gain a better 
understanding of the positions that had been ta ken, and some progress was made.  Although no 
agreement had yet been reached, th e GCC was willing to continue to  work with other Members to 
find a solution that was reasonable, fair and balanced.   
43. The representative of the Saudi Arabia  supported the intervention by Oman.  He added that 
the process of preparing the Factual Presentation on  the GCC Customs Union was a procedural one, 
which would allow the agreement to be considered in the CTD in accordance wi th the TM for RTAs.  
44. The representative of Egypt, on behalf of the African Group , said that the African Group had 
systemic concerns on the issue of preserving the rights of developing countries to avail of the Enabling Clause on all matters relating to RTAs.  In light of these concerns, he expressed understanding and full support for the position of the GCC.  He encouraged Members to review the 
GCC Customs Union in the CTD.  He also called on the Chairman to hold consultations on the matter 
with a broad group of developed and developing countries, including the coordinators of regional 
groupings.  He stressed the importance of ensuring that the inherent rights of developing countries 
with regard to the Enabling Clause were not prejudiced.   
45. The representative of Qatar
 supported the intervention by Oman.  He indicated that Qatar 
wished to retain its right to notify the GCC Customs Union under the Enabling Clause. WT/COMTD/M/73 
Page 10  
 
  46. The representative of Morocco, on behalf of the Arab Group
, expressed support for the 
interventions made by the GCC countries and other developing countries on this matter.  The 
Arab Group encouraged the delegations concerned to find ways to resolve the procedural questions in 
a manner which fully respected the in terests of all developing countries. 
47. The representative of th e European Communities  regretted that the GCC countries had not yet 
confirmed their intention to overturn their decision to modify the notification status of the GCC 
Customs Union.  He encouraged the GCC countries to expeditiously reconsider their position and 
re-notify the GCC Customs Union under Article XX IV, as it was originally notified.  The EC had 
clearly explained in writing – in document WT/C OMTD/66/Add.2 – its legal concerns about the 
GCC's decision to notify its customs union under the Enabling Clause.  The legal explanation was 
clear.  The Enabling Clause did not provide a suffici ent legal basis for the notification of a customs 
union.  The GCC had confirmed that its customs uni on provided for the elimination of both tariffs and 
NTBs.  However, paragraph 2(c) of the Enab ling Clause could be invoked to justify those 
arrangements which envisaged the elimination and reduction of tari ffs only.  Therefore, the GCC 
Customs Union did not have a legal cover under the Enabling Clause.  
48. He added that all WTO Members were required to fulfil their WTO commitments, including 
those made in the run-up to accession.  As noted  by the US, Saudi Arabia and Oman had made 
clear-cut commitments with respect to their free-trade areas and customs unions and related 
obligations under Article XXIV.  The EC urged them to duly honour their commitments.  As had 
already been indicated at the last CTD meeting, the EC considered that further discussions on this 
matter should take place in the CRTA, since th is was the appropriate forum for discussing an 
agreement which had been original ly notified under Article XXIV, a nd which could only be justified 
under this provision.  The EC encouraged the GC C countries to swiftly reconsider the unjustified 
change in the notification of their customs union.  He indicated that his delegation would continue to 
work with the GCC, in particular in view of  the upcoming CRTA meeting of 20 and 21 April. 
49. The representative of India  said that his delegation had been following the discussions on this 
matter very closely.  It was India's understandi ng that the GCC Customs Union qualified under both 
the general provision of GATT Article XXIV and the specific provision of the Enabling Clause.  Therefore, the customs union could have been notified to the WTO under either of the two provisions.  Since the members of the GCC were all developing c ountries, his delegation was of the view that it 
was the prerogative of the GCC countries to dete rmine whether to notify their agreement under 
Article XXIV or under the Enabling Clause.  WTO Me mbers, other than Part ies to the agreement, 
could not determine the provision under which the no tification was to be made.  It caused systemic 
concerns to India if developing country Members were denied the right to notify an agreement under 
the Enabling Clause.  Moreover, this was not the first time that a customs union had been notified 
under the Enabling Clause. 
 
50. He added that there was nothing in the WTO procedures that prevented Members from 
notifying an agreement under a particular provision.  Members should not lose sight of the fact that 
the rationale of a notification was to inform the me mbership.  He also referred to the submission made 
by the US in document WT/COMTD/66/Add.1, in which the US had raised issues about 
inconsistencies with GATT provisions.  In this rega rd, he said that the question of GATT consistency 
or inconsistency was an issue to be discussed separa tely.  In his delegation's view, this issue had no 
connection with the matter of notifying an agre ement under the Enabling Cl ause or Article XXIV.  
India looked forward to a formal consideration of the GCC Customs Union in line with the provisions 
of the TM for RTAs.  He pointed out in this regard  that paragraphs 1 and 5 of the TM provided that 
the consideration of RTAs by the membership di d not affect Members' rights and obligations under 
the WTO Agreements.  Given this provision, it w as difficult to see how any scrutiny by the CRTA - 
based on a notification under Article XXIV – or  by the CTD – based on a notification under the 
Enabling Clause – could prejudice the legal position of an individual WTO Member.  Finally, he  WT/COMTD/M/73 
 Page 11 
 
 
  indicated that his delegation wished to be associat ed with any consultations that the Chairman might 
decide to hold on this matter. 
51. The representative of Australia  said that her delegation attached importance to the proper 
notification of customs unions, including the GCC Cu stoms Union.  For the reasons outlined by the 
US and the EC, Australia was of the view that  the GCC Customs Union should be notified under 
GATT Article XXIV and considered in the CRTA.  Accordingly, she encouraged the GCC to 
reconsider the withdrawal of its Article XXIV notif ication.  She added that her delegation had been 
participating actively in informal work on this  matter, and welcomed the GCC's willingness to 
consider Australia's concerns surrounding the notif ication.  Australia looked forward to a positive 
resolution of the matter.   
52. The representative of China  said that his delegation had been following this discussion very 
closely.  China had also engaged in bilateral di scussions with concerned de legations, and had a better 
understanding of the different views.  In the view of his delegation, the matter was a procedural one.  
He clarified in this regard that his delegation belie ved that the substance could be left to the review 
process.  His delegation also believed that further discussions – led by the Chairman – were necessary 
and welcome.  China was fully committed to engage  in any consultations that the Chairman might 
call, and in whatever form was considered appropri ate.  He additionally indicated that, according to 
paragraph 6 of the TM for RTAs, the consideration of notified RTAs should nor mally be concluded in 
a period not exceeding one year after the date of notifi cation.  He noted in this regard that it had been 
more than one year since the GCC had notified its customs union under the Enabling Clause, and no progress had been made on the matter.  He urged all pa rties to accelerate their work in order to meet 
the requirements of the TM. 
53. The representative of Canada
 highlighted his delegation's interest in this matter.  As had been 
indicated at the last CTD meeting, Canada was of  the view that the GCC Customs Union should be 
notified under GATT Article XXIV. 
54. The representative of Brazil  said that nothing in the TM for RTAs authorized any Member to 
unilaterally decide on suspending the considerati on of an RTA.  The process did not depend on 
consensus or on any agreement by Members, and w as designed to start after the notification of the 
RTA.  He observed that the process was based on t echnical work done by the Secretariat, consisting 
of a Factual Presentation prepared in consultation w ith the Parties.  The refusal on the part of any 
Member to consider an RTA raised serious systemic  concerns, and departed from the general spirit of 
the TM.  As a practical suggestion, he encouraged the GCC countries to continue to consult with the 
Secretariat with a view to completing the technical requirements for the consideration of the GCC 
Customs Union. 
55. The representative of Japan  said that her delegation shared the concerns raised by the US and 
the EC.  The GCC agreement was a customs union with common external tariffs, and it was her delegation's understanding that the common external tariffs for certain produc ts were above the bound 
duties of some GCC countries.  If this was the case,  it was a violation of GATT Article II.  Such a 
violation could not be justified by a notification und er the Enabling Clause.  She also indicated that 
both GATT Article XXIV and the Enabling Clause pr ovided that the notified RTA should not raise 
barriers to other Members.  For a customs union, according to paragraph 5 of Article XXIV and the 
Understanding on Article XXIV, there was a requireme nt that a general incidence calculation needed 
to be conducted by the Secretariat.  She explaine d that Japan wished to have the opportunity to 
consider thoroughly whether the formation of th e GCC Customs Union had a negative impact on 
other WTO Members.  In this light, Japan supported the US and the EC in calling on the GCC countries to notify their customs union under Article XXIV and to have it considered in the CRTA.  
She also expressed her delegation's willingness to con tinue discussions on this matter in order to find 
a reasonable, clear and balanced solution. WT/COMTD/M/73 
Page 12  
 
  56. The representative of Pakistan
 said that his delegation wished  to place on record its firm 
support for the GCC's right to notify its customs union under the Enabling Clause.  From a systemic point of view, he believed that placing obstacles at this level would render the Enabling Clause 
ineffective.  He also believed that it was too early to be having a discussion on legal issues.  He suggested that the GCC Customs Union go thro ugh the required process of consideration by 
Members.  During this process, Members could rai se any concerns that they may have about the 
validity of the notification.  Such concerns could su bsequently be dealt with in the appropriate forum 
which, in the view of his delegation, was not the CTD. 
57. The representative of Nigeria
 said that his delegation had been following this discussion with 
keen interest.  He noted that Members had diffe rent views on the interpretation of the Enabling 
Clause, but also pointed out that developing coun tries had certain flexibilities with regard to the 
provisions under which to notify RTAs.  He indicated  that this matter raised systemic concerns, and 
expressed support for the statement by Egypt.  He ca lled on the Chairman to consult informally with 
Members with a view to arriving at a positive resolution. 
58. The Chairman  noted that no delegation had requested th at this item remain on the agenda for 
the next CTD meeting.  He also noted that cons ultations between the GCC countries and some other 
delegations would continue.  If it was felt that he could be of assistance during these consultations, he 
was willing to do so, on request.  
59. The representative of Oman  said that this was the first time that this matter was being 
discussed in the CTD as a formal agenda item.  He  believed that the item should remain on the CTD's 
agenda until an acceptable solution for all delegations  had been found.  He requested the Chairman to 
hold an informal consultation on the matter as soon as possible. 
60. The representative of Egypt  said that his delegation wanted this item to remain on the CTD's 
agenda.  He also requested the Chairman to hold an  informal consultation on this matter with a broad 
group of developed and developing countries, in cluding the coordinators of regional groupings. 
61. The representative of Saudi Arabia  supported the requests from other delegations for the 
Chairman to hold an informal consultation to ex plore how progress could be made on this matter. 
62. The representative of the United Arab Emirates  supported the interventions of the previous 
three speakers.  The United Arab Emirates want ed this item to remain on the CTD's agenda. 
63. The representative of Kuwait  thanked those delegations that  had expressed their support for 
the GCC's position.  He echoed other delegations in calling for the CTD Chairman to hold an informal 
consultation. 
64. The Chairman  said that he would look into holding an informal consultation on this matter.  
He proposed that the Committee take note of all interventions.  The item would remain on the CTD's 
agenda.   
65. It was so agreed . 
(iv) Consideration of regional trade agreements in volving non-WTO Members – statement by the 
Chairman 
66. The Chairman  said that the CTD – meeting in Dedicate d Session – had, in its consideration of 
newly-notified RTAs under the Enabling Clause, agreed  to use the same procedures as those used by 
the CRTA.  These procedures were based on the provisions of the TM for RTAs.  Since the 
establishment of the TM, the CRTA – and hence the CTD – had been using these procedures only to  WT/COMTD/M/73 
 Page 13 
 
 
  consider notified RTAs involving WTO Members, pe nding a decision on the consideration of notified 
RTAs involving non-WTO Members as well.  
67. In this context, he informed the Committee that the CRTA, at its formal meeting of 
4 March 2009, had agreed that it would be a ppropriate to begin considering RTAs involving 
non-WTO Members, using the same TM procedures that  were being used to consider RTAs between 
WTO Members only.  Members had emphasized the importance of developing  a fuller understanding 
of the operation of all RTAs.  The Secretariat – to th e extent it had resources available, and taking into 
account practical considerations such as the av ailability of data and the established work 
programme - had therefore been requested to pr epare Factual Presentations on such agreements.  
Members had agreed that these agreements would be  considered under a separate agenda item.  He 
noted that there were three agreements involving non-WTO Members that had already been notified 
under the Enabling Clause and that would need to be  considered by Members in a Dedicated Session 
of the CTD, on the basis of a Factual Presentation.  These were the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), the India-Bhutan Agreement and the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement 
(PICTA).  
68. The representative of Brazil
 supported the statement by the Chairman.  He requested that 
Brazil's intervention at the CRTA meeting of 4 Marc h 2009 be included in the records of the present 
meeting.1 
69. The representative of the United States  welcomed the new procedures relating to RTAs with 
non-Members.  She said that the US had no objections to the procedures, but wished to reiterate that 
any consideration of agreements  between Members and non-Members could not constitute a waiver 
from the substantive conditions of the Enabling Cl ause, nor could it imply any view a Member may 
have regarding the consistency of any such agre ement with WTO obligations .  Her delegation looked 
forward to the prospect of a greater understanding of all RTAs. 
70. The representative of the European Communities  requested that the intervention of his 
delegation at the CRTA meeting of 4 March 2009 be included in the records of the present meeting.2 
71. The Chairman  proposed that the Committee agree to  adopt the TM procedures used by the 
CRTA to consider RTAs under the Enabling Clause involving non-WTO Members. 
72. It was so agreed .   
D. DECISION ON TRANSPARENCY FOR PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS (WT/L/672 ) 
73. The Chairman  said that the 14 December 2006 Gene ral Council Decision on "Transparency 
for Preferential Trade Arrangements" – contai ned in document WT/L/672 – invited the CTD to 
consider transparency for preferential arrangement s under paragraph 2 of the Enabling Clause – other 
than RTAs – and report back within six months fo r appropriate action by th e General Council.  The 
Council had since extended the deadline to its July 2009 meeting. 
74. He recalled that the proponents of a TM for PTAs – Brazil, China, India and the US – had 
presented their draft proposal, circulated in document JOB(08)/103, at the 71st Session of the CTD in 
October 2008.  As he had informed the CTD and th e General Council in Dece mber 2008, he had held 
several rounds of small-group informal consultations after the circulation of the proposal in order to 
have a detailed consideration of it,  and to try to iron out as many outstanding issues as possible.  He 
had continued this process with another informal c onsultation in the same format at the beginning of 
                                                      
1 The intervention by Brazil can be found in Annex I of this Note.  
2 The intervention by the European Communities can be found in Annex II of this Note. WT/COMTD/M/73 
Page 14  
 
  2009.  In light of the comments that had been ma de in these small-group informal consultations, the 
proponents were currently revising their draft pr oposal.  His intention was to call an informal, 
open-ended CTD meeting to consider the revised propo sal shortly after it was circulated to Members.  
He also informed Members that the Secretariat wa s in the process of finalizing a "mock" Factual 
Presentation of a PTA, which was based on the GSP scheme of the US.  He wanted the "mock" to be 
considered at the same informal, open-ended meeting that he would be calling to consider the revised 
draft proposal by the proponents.  
75. The representative of Brazil
 said that his delegation continue d to be actively engaged in the 
consultations that the Chairman had been calling on this matter.  Although it had not yet been possible 
to fulfil the mandate from the General Council, he be lieved that substantial progress had been made in 
understanding the concerns and needs of Members – both sponsors of PTAs and beneficiaries.  This 
progress would be reflected in a revised version of  the October 2008 proposal, which would shortly be 
presented by Brazil, China, India and the US.  In  this regard, the proponents not only encouraged 
Members to debate and discuss the contents of the document, but also remained open to suggestions 
and contributions.  As the need and desire for transparency was growing among WTO Members, the 
proponents were confident that their initiative w ould be accepted and approv ed on its own merits 
without further delay.  He welcomed the Chairman's  efforts to complete the technical work on this 
matter, and to call an informal, open-ended meeting.  The proponents stood ready to discuss any 
aspects of the proposal, and to respond to any comments or questions from delegations. 
76. The representative of India  supported the intervention by Brazil.  He looked forward to 
constructive engagement from Members with a view to an early conclusion of the technical work on 
this matter. 
77. The representative of the United States  supported the interventions by Brazil and India.  She 
expressed appreciation for the interest demonstrated by other Members on this matter, and for their active participation in the informal consultations.  The US looked forward to continuing the work in 
advancing the TM for PTAs toward a positive outc ome.  The US also supported the Chairman's 
proposal to continue informal discussions on the draft text in an open-ended format.   
78. The representative of China
 associated his delegation with the interventions by the other 
proponents.  He said that China was encouraged with the progress that had been made on this matter 
in the small-group informal consu ltations, and was looking forward to  participating in the informal, 
open-ended CTD meeting that the Chairman would be calling.  
79. The Chairman  reiterated his intention to call an in formal, open-ended CTD meeting shortly 
after the circulation of the revised draft proposal.  He said that he would also open this matter up for 
discussion once again at the next formal meeting of the CTD.  The item would, therefore, remain on the CTD's agenda. 
80. It was so agreed
.  WT/COMTD/M/73 
 Page 15 
 
 
  E. REVIEW OF STEPS T AKEN TO PROVIDE DUTY -FREE AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET ACCESS TO 
LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES   
81. The Chairman  said that an item concerning the Hong Kong Decision on DFQF market access 
for LDCs had been on the CTD's agenda since early  2006.  Under this item, delegations had provided 
information on the steps they were taking, or had already taken, to provide DFQF market access to 
LDCs.  Written communications by some Members had also been considered.  He recalled that the 
CTD had to date undertaken three of its mandate d annual reviews of the implementation of the 
Hong Kong Decision.   
82. The representative of Bangladesh  said that the Hong Kong Decision was a milestone in terms 
of market access initiatives for LDCs.  He recalle d that the Decision called on developed countries, 
and developing countries declaring themselves in a position to do so, to provide DFQF market access 
on a lasting basis, for all products originating from a ll LDCs by 2008 or no later than the start of the 
implementation period in a manner which ensured st ability, security and predictability.  Developing 
country Members had been provided the flexibility  to phase in their commitments and to enjoy 
appropriate flexibility in coverage.  The Decision al so provided some flexibility to developed country 
Members that may have initial difficulties in provi ding 100 per cent DFQF market access.  These 
Members were to provide DFQF market access fo r at least 97 per cent of products from LDCs, 
defined at the tariff line level, while working to comply in a progressive manner with the 100 per cent 
requirement. 
83. He said that, more than three years since th e Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, the US was 
the notable developed country that had yet to offer DFQF market access to LDCs on at least 
97 per cent of its tariff lines.  The LDCs still did not know the lines which the US would include as 
part of the 97 per cent.  He said that the LDCs would appreciate it if the US could inform the Committee of any progress that had been made in this  regard to ensure the provision of meaningful 
and enhanced market access to LDCs.  He also thanked the developed an d developing country 
Members that had already granted DFQF market access to LDCs. 
84. The representative of the European Communities
 said that developing countries, and in 
particular the LDCs, were suffering from the impact of the current financial and economic crisis.  In 
this light, the need to provide meaningful market access to LDCs had become even more acute.  His 
delegation called on developed c ountry Members, and those developing country Members in a 
position to do so, to comply as soon as possible with the provisions of the Hong Kong Decision on 
DFQF market access.   
85. The Committee took note  of all interventions. 
F. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND TRAINING  
- INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE ANNUAL REPORT ON TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING (1 JANUARY 2008  TO 31 DECEMBER 2008) 
86. The Director of the Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation (ITTC)  said that he 
wished to make some preliminary remarks on th e 2008 Annual Report on Technical Assistance and 
Training, which would be presented to Members at the next CTD meeting.  He indicated that a total of 490 technical assistance (TA) activities – including  both Geneva-based activities and those held 
outside Geneva – had been implemen ted in 2008.  The majority of activ ities – 162 in total – were held 
in Africa, representing 33 per cent of the WTO's TA.  Asia and the Pacific accounted for 23 per cent 
of all activities, followed by Latin America with 12  per cent of the total.  The Central and Eastern 
Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus (CEECAC) region, the Arab and Middle-East countries and 
the Caribbean each accounted for 5 per cent of the ac tivities.  Participants from LDCs were associated WT/COMTD/M/73 
Page 16  
 
  with 42 per cent of all activities.  This included 97 national activities held in LDCs, as well as regional 
seminars, workshops and training activities in which LDCs participated.  Of the 490 activities, a total 
of 227 were held at the national level,  while 144 were regional and global events. 
87. He moved on to discuss the Biennial TA Plan for 2010 and 2011.  In the context of preparing 
the plan, an extensive consultation process with Me mbers would take place, and would culminate in 
the plan being presented to the CTD later in the year for adoption.  He encouraged Members to 
participate actively in the preparation process, so th at their needs and concerns could be appropriately 
addressed in the plan.  He also informed the Co mmittee that the Secretariat was working towards 
updating Members' needs assessments, in order to ensure that WTO TA activities responded to the 
needs that Members had expressed.  Among the focuses of the new plan, he highlighted e-training as a 
tool to offer introductory-level courses.  Bene ficiaries could then advance their learning by 
participating in regional trade policy courses (RTPCs ) at the intermediate level and specialization 
courses in Geneva. 
88. On financial issues, he said that about Sw  F 18 million had been received in 2008 for TA 
activities.  Approximately the same amount had been spent in the course of the year.  While the 
financial situation was therefore balanced, he indica ted that it was a fragile balance.  For example, 
some activities had been delayed due to the late receip t of contributions.  He indicated in this regard 
that the Secretariat would continue to work with donors to ensure that contributions were made in a 
timely fashion.  He added that, in view of the TA Plan now being prepared on a biennial basis, the 
Secretariat had proposed that donors make their contri butions on a biennial basis.  This would help the 
better planning of TA activities in the future.  In this connection,  he was pleased to report that a 
number of donors had begun making biennial contri butions.  He invited other donors to consider 
moving in the same direction. 
89. He indicated that he wished to  say a few words about requests for national TA activities.  In 
an effort to avoid any possible financial problems,  it had been decided that national activities would 
be held during the first trimester of 2009, while re gional activities would take place later in the year.  
He explained that national activities were funded fro m the regular budget – which in any year became 
available on 1 January – while regional activities were funded from the Doha Development Agenda 
Global Trust Fund (DDAGTF).  While the implementa tion of national activities had already begun, he 
nevertheless encouraged Members that had not yet submitted their requests for such activities to do so 
as soon as possible. 
90. Finally, he turned to the matter of coordinati on between agencies offering TA on trade issues.  
He informed the Committee in this  regard that a mechanism had been put in place in 2008 to allow 
agencies to dialogue on how to better coordinate th eir activities, avoid overlap and, where possible, 
undertake the joint implementation of activities.  The agencies had held an initial meeting in 
November 2008, and had agreed to meet on a regular basis. 
91. The representative of Bangladesh
 said that his delegation had requested three national 
activities in 2008.  These were in the areas of Serv ices, TRIPS and Rules.  While the activities on 
Services and TRIPS had already been held, he request ed the Secretariat to work to organize the Rules 
activity as soon as possible.  His delegation would communicate to the Secretariat its requests for 
national activities in 2009.  He added that a request had been made for the funding of an intern from 
Bangladesh to be attached to the WTO. 
92. The representative of Nigeria  said that TA must recognize the particular needs of individual 
countries in order to have maximum impact.  His delegation also wanted to see a better balance 
between national activities and regional activities.  In  particular, Nigeria felt that more activities to 
help individual countries achieve the objectives that they had identified would be useful.  He supported the initiatives that were being put in place to ensure the timely receipt of contributions,  WT/COMTD/M/73 
 Page 17 
 
 
  which he hoped would allow activities to be held according to schedule and in the originally foreseen 
calendar year. 
93. The representative of Kenya  welcomed the efforts that were being made to improve the 
delivery and impact of TA.  His delegation hoped that these initiatives would be cost effective and 
would lead to more TA activities being held  at both national and regional levels.   
94. The representative of China  emphasized the importance of TA to developing countries.  He 
said that China had greatly benefited from the WTO's TA, and was committed to this form of 
assistance to developing countries.  He was pleased to  say that – in the context of the Aid-for-Trade 
initiative – China had made a contribution of US $200,000, which was being channelled into the 
WTO's training activities.   
95. The Committee took note  of all interventions.   
G. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SUB -COMMITTEE ON LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  
96. The Chairman  said that he had been informed that consultations had led to the proposal for 
Ambassador Jean Feyder of Luxembourg to serve fo r another year as Chairman of the Sub-Committee 
on LDCs.  He asked whether this was acceptable to Members. 
97. It was so agreed . 
98. The Chairman  said that it was a great pleasure for him to welcome Ambassador Feyder to 
serve for another year as the Chairman of the S ub-Committee on LDCs.  Ambassador Feyder had vast 
experience in development issues.  He was long responsible for developm ent cooperation in his 
country, and this experience was valuable for the work of the Sub-Committee on LDCs.  The 
numerous posts he had occupied in his career incl uded Permanent Representa tive of Luxembourg to 
the European Union and Permanent Representati ve of Luxembourg to the United Nations in 
New York.  He currently served as Ambassador a nd Permanent Representative of Luxembourg to the 
United Nations Office, the International Organizations and the WTO in Geneva. 
99. The Chairman of the Sub-Committee on LDCs  expressed appreciation to Members for the 
confidence they had placed in him.  He noted the extent to which the current financial and economic 
crisis was affecting LDCs, and in this regard called on Members' full participation in the work of the 
Sub-Committee. 
100. The representative of Tanzania, on behalf of the LDC Group , welcomed Ambassador Feyder 
back as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on LDCs.  He expressed appreciation to those Members that 
had already taken steps to address the particular  needs of the LDCs, and hoped that Members would 
intensify their attention on these needs.   
H. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE CTD   
101. The Chairman  said that the General Council at its m eeting on 3 February had announced the 
Chairpersons for 2009.  It was with great pleasure that he had accepted to serve as Chairman of the 
CTD for another year.  He thanked Members for the confidence they had placed in him, and said that 
he would continue in his efforts to move forwar d the work of the CTD in Regular Session, the 
Dedicated Sessions on RTAs and on Small Economies, as well as the CTD's work on Aid for Trade. 
102. The Committee elected  Ambassador Servansing as Chairman of the CTD for 2009. WT/COMTD/M/73 
Page 18  
 
  I. 
OTHER BUSINESS  
103. The Chairman  said that he wished to inform the Co mmittee of a letter that had been sent to 
him from the Chair of the General Council.  It w as his understanding that a similar letter had been 
sent to the Chairs of all WTO Councils and Co mmittees.  He said that in the letter, dated 
26 February 2009, the General Counc il Chair recalled that the informal meeting of the Trade Policy 
Review Body (TPRB) held on 9 February 2009 ha d initiated a process of monitoring recent trade 
developments associated with the current global fina ncial and economic crisis.  At that meeting, the 
then Chair of the TPRB had noted that if this exerci se were to be carried out successfully and were to 
be useful to the WTO membership, the availability of comprehensive, accurate and timely information 
would be crucial.  The Chairman explained that it was in this context that the General Council Chair 
had invited him to consult with Members on improving the timeliness and completeness of 
notifications and other information flows on trad e measures falling within the CTD's areas of work. 
104. In this regard, and in terms of the recent work  of the CTD, he highlighted the CTD as the 
body in which notifications under the Enabling Cl ause of RTAs and GSP schemes were made.  
Newly-notified RTAs under the Enabling Clause were  considered in Dedicated Sessions of the CTD 
on the basis of the provisions of the TM for RT As.  In addition, the CTD was working towards 
fulfilling the General Council mandate concerning tran sparency for PTAs.  He also highlighted the 
standing item on the CTD's agenda concerning DFQF  market access for LDCs, under which Members 
had provided information on the steps they were ta king, or had already taken, to provide DFQF 
market access for LDCs.  An annual review of  the implementation of the Hong Kong Decision on 
DFQF market access also took place in the CTD.  He said that these were examples of transparency in 
the provision of information on trade measures.  His purpose in citing these examples was to 
encourage Members to provide to the Committee in a timely fashion informati on on any relevant trade 
measures which fell within the CTD's areas of work.  He said that he stood ready to hold any further 
discussions on the matter raised by the General C ouncil Chair, should any Member so wish.  He 
added that interested Members should feel free to contact him on this matter. 
105. The Chairman moved on to the second matter that he wished to raise, which concerned the 
CTD's mandate to keep under continuous review the participation of developing country Members in 
the multilateral trading system.  He said that it had been the CTD's practice to hold a discussion on this subject every two years or so.  On previous  occasions when this item had been placed on the 
CTD's agenda, the Secretariat had updated its sta tistical background paper on the participation of 
developing countries in global trade, in order to assist Members in their discussion.  He noted that the 
last such discussion by the CTD on this subject ha d taken place in December 2007.  He proposed that 
the CTD have another discussion on the subject at its December 2009, for which the Secretariat would 
once again update its background paper usi ng the most recent trade statistics.  
106. It was so agreed
.   
107. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
_______________  WT/COMTD/M/73 
 Page 19 
 
 
  ANNEX I 
 
INTERVENTION BY BRAZIL AT THE FIFTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON REGIONAL TRADE AG REEMENTS (4 MARCH 2009)1 
 
 The representative of Brazil  expressed his delegation's appr eciation for the opportunity to 
share its views on this issue following the Chairman 's consultations over the last months.  That 
process had resulted in the defi nition of procedures for the c onsideration of RTAs between 
WTO Members and non-Members in the context of the TM.  Brazil was aware that this issue touched 
upon important systemic considerations and was ple ased that one of them, related to transparency, 
appeared to have been settled. 
    The history of the matter was long and predat ed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
1947.  In February 1946, a Resolution of the United Nations Economic and Social Council had 
established a Preparatory Committee to discuss issues related to trade and production, exchange and 
consumption of goods, with a view to the crea tion of a United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Employment.  Based on a proposal from the United Stat es for an International Trade Organization, the 
first session of the Preparatory Committee took place between October a nd November 1946 and had 
addressed, among other matters, preferential adva ntages extended to non-Members which would 
result in discrimination against the trade of any othe r Member of that future organization.  In that 
regard, the relevant parts of the report of the fi rst session of the Preparatory Committee illustrated 
what had been happening for the past 60 year s, and he quoted: "The Preparatory Committee 
considered Article 31 of the United States Draft Ch arter which is concerned with this subject but 
decided to leave the question for consideration at a later stage".
2  This might be telling of the great 
carefulness some delegations had been showing in discussing the issue of RTAs between the 
WTO Members and non-Members, but did not justify it. 
 
 As a matter of fact, RTAs between WTO Members and non-Members existed, and they 
continued to be concluded and notified to the WTO.   In the last year alone, for example, 18 such 
agreements had been notified to the WTO S ecretariat under the TM covering goods, services and 
other matters.  This should, in itself, be sufficien t to prompt Members to engage in discussions and 
debate over these RTAs but, as pointed out, this had not been the case up until now.   
 
 Brazil welcomed the positive reception by Me mbers of the procedures the Chairman had 
suggested for the consideration of RTAs involvi ng non-Members under the TM.  This would enable 
Members to have a better understanding of such ag reements and to evaluate their adequateness and 
usefulness vis-à-vis  the developmental and economic integra tion-related objectives that had oriented 
the existence of RTAs from the beginning of the multilateral trading system.  The WTO's rules on 
RTAs provided disciplines that addressed RTAs concluded between WTO Members and non-Members as well as those concluded exclus ively between WTO Members.  Brazil understood 
that any consideration of RTAs between WTO Members and non-Members under the TM would not 
prejudice any rights and obligations of WTO Members nor the legal status of those agreements, including their compatibility w ith the WTO's rules on RTAs. 
                                                     
 
1 As found in the Note on the meeting (WT/REG/M/52).  
2 Background note by the Secretariat "PARAGRAPH 10 OF ARTICLE XXIV OF THE GATT 
1994" - 26 April 2004, paragraph 7. WT/COMTD/M/73 
Page 20  
 
  ANNEX II 
INTERVENTION BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AT THE FIFTY-SECOND 
SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON RE GIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
(4 MARCH 2009)
1 
 
 
 The representative of the European Communities  thanked the Chairman for his efforts in 
having arrived at an acceptable solution.  His de legation did not share the view expressed by Brazil 
and others particularly with re ference to GATT Article XXIV:10.  This was not borne out by the 
GATT and its practice.  Differences among WTO Members and GATT Contracting Parties had 
existed in the past on this question, yet the appr oach that the Chairman had proposed was, in his 
delegation's view, meant to set aside this issue in view of the shared intention of the Committee to 
restart the consideration of RTAs involving non-Memb ers under the TM.  The EC considered that the 
approach proposed by the Chairman was useful  and pragmatic, and his delegation supported it.  
__________  
                                                      
1 As found in the Note on the meeting (WT/REG/M/52).