RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/M/80  
21 December 2010 
 (10-6846) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Eightieth Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 4 OCTOBER 2010 
 
Chairman:  H. E. Mr. Erwidodo (Indonesia)  
  
 
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................2  
B. OBSERVERS ............................................................................................................................... ...2 
(i) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers ...............................................................................2  
(ii) Further consideration of 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 
Developpement.................................................................................................................. ..........2
 
C. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE .........................................................................3  
-  GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL (GCC) NOTIFICATION OF CUSTOMS UNION – 
COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA , EGYPT AND INDIA (WT/COMTD /W/175) ....................................3  
- NOTIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN GOODS BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION 
OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN ) AND KOREA ................................................................3  
- NOTIFICATION OF THE COMPREHENSIV E ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 
BETWEEN INDIA AND KOREA (GOODS ) ........................................................................................3  
D. DECISION ON TRANSPARENCY FOR PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS ............................11  
- GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION OF 14 DECEMBER 2006  (WT/L/672)..............................................11  
- TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM FOR PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS - DRAFT   
PROPOSAL BY BRAZIL , CHINA , INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES (JOB(08)/103/REV.3) ...............11  
E. REVIEW OF STEPS T AKEN TO PROVIDE DUTY -FREE AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET ACCESS 
TO LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES ...........................................................................................13  
F. PARAGRAPH 51 OF THE DOHA DECLARATION ON IDENTIFYING AND DEBATING 
DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS , IN ORDER TO HELP ACHIEVE THE 
OBJECTIVE OF HAVING SUSTAINABLE DEV ELOPMENT APPROPRIATELY REFLECTED 
(WT/COMTD /W/143/REV.4).........................................................................................................15  
G. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................17  
 
  
 WT/COMTD/M/80  
Page 2  
 
   
A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairman  said that the draft agenda for the 80th Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (CTD) was contained in document WTO/AIR/3616/Rev.1 circulated on 30 September 2010.  Drawing Members' attenti on to agenda item D concerning the Decision on 
Transparency for Preferential Trade Arrangements (P TAs), he said that important progress had been 
made on the negotiations concerning the Transparen cy Mechanism (TM) for PTAs.  This progress, 
which had been the outcome of a small-group inform al consultation that had been held just one 
working day before the present meeting, had allowe d the proponents – Brazil, China, India and the 
United States – to circulate a third revision of their draft proposal.  It was this third revision, 
circulated in document JOB(08)/103/Rev.3, that was the appropriate one for consideration under 
agenda item D, and not the previous version of the document – JOB(08)/103/Rev.2 – which appeared 
on the draft agenda for the 80
th Session.  
2. The agenda was adopted . 
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 requests for observer st atus 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 Developpement 
5. The Chairman
 said that the positions of delegations were on the record.  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 .   WT/COMTD/M/80  
 Page 3 
 
 
  C. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  
- GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL (GCC) NOTIFICATION OF CUSTOMS UNION – 
COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA , EGYPT AND INDIA (WT/COMTD /W/175) 
- NOTIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN GOODS BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION 
OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN ) AND KOREA  
- NOTIFICATION OF THE COMPREHENSIV E ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 
BETWEEN INDIA AND KOREA (GOODS ) 
7. The Chairman  said that he wished to provide Members with an update on the regional trade 
agreements (RTAs) notified under the Enabling Clau se that were to be considered in the CTD's 
Dedicated Sessions on RTAs.  He recalled that he had previously informed Members of two 
notifications of RTAs under the Enabling Clause th at had been made in 2010.  These notifications 
concerned the India-MERCOSUR Agreement and the I ndia-Afghanistan Agreement.  With regard to 
the provision of the necessary data by the parti es which would allow the Secretariat to prepare the 
factual presentations on these two agreements, he reported that the Secretariat had still not received 
complete data from the parties.  It was envisaged that the two agreements could be considered in a 
Dedicated Session of the CTD in 2011, though this would depend on when the Secretariat received 
the data.  He urged the concerned partie s to provide the data as soon as possible. 
8. With regard to the three RTAs involving non-WTO Members that had been previously 
notified under the Enabling Clause, he said that in line with the procedures of the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA), the consid eration of the Pacific Island Countries Trade 
Agreement (PICTA) and the South Asian Free Trad e Agreement (SAFTA) would need to wait until 
all the parties had ratified them.  As for the Indi a-Bhutan Agreement, no data had yet been received 
from the parties.  He once again urged the concerned parties to provide the data as soon as possible.  
9. Turning to more recent notifications of RTAs  under the Enabling Clause, he said that the 
notification of the India-Nepal Agreement had been  circulated in document WT/COMTD/N/34, while 
the notification of the Agreement between the Asso ciation of Southeast As ian Nations (ASEAN) and 
India had been circulated in document WT/COMTD/N /35.  The Secretariat had requested the parties 
to the India-Nepal Agreement to provide the data  necessary to prepare the factual presentation by 
20 December 2010.  As for the ASEAN-India Ag reement, it was his understanding that the 
Agreement had not yet been ratified by all the part ies.  A request for data would be sent once the 
Secretariat received confirmation that all the parties had ratified the Agreement.  In this regard, he 
urged the ASEAN countries to let the Secretariat know about the status of their ratification as soon as 
possible, so as to allow the Secretariat to begin the process of drafting the factual presentation.  He 
continued by saying that two other RTAs which ha d recently been notified under the Enabling Clause 
were the ASEAN-Korea Agreement and the India-Korea Agreement.  These notifications, along with 
the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Customs Union notification, appeared as sub-items under the 
present agenda item.  He, therefore, proposed to move on to the three sub-items. 
10. In the context of the GCC Customs Union notification, he recalled that divergent views had 
been expressed by delegations on how to proceed, gi ven in particular that the Agreement had been 
notified under the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XX IV.  The informal consultations that he had 
held on this matter had been useful in allowing a better understanding of the pos itions of delegations.  
However, he noted that the GCC Customs Union w as no longer the only RTA that had been notified  
under the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV.  For one thing, the goods component of the 
ASEAN-Korea Agreement had also been notified under both provisions.  In this case, ASEAN had 
notified the Agreement under the Enabling Clause in document WT/COMTD/N/33, while Korea had 
notified it under Article XXIV in document WT/REG 287/N/1.  More recently, the goods component WT/COMTD/M/80  
Page 4  
 
  of the India-Korea Agreement had also been notified under both provisions, with Korea notifying 
under Article XXIV in document WT/REG286/N/1 and India notifying under the Enabling Clause in document WT/COMTD/N/36.  He concluded by noti ng that China, Egypt and India had submitted a 
communication articulating their concerns on dual no tifications in the context of the GCC Customs 
Union notification.  This communication, circulated in document WT/COMTD/W/175, was titled 
"Systemic and specific issues arising out of the dual notification of the Gulf Cooperation Council 
Customs Union".  He invited the proponents to introduce their communication.  
11. The representative of India
 said that the issue concerning the notification of the GCC 
Customs Union had engaged the a ttention of Members in successive CTD meetings since May 2008.  
He recalled that some developed Members had raised the issue of the GCC Customs Union 
notification under "Other Business" at the 69th, 70th, 71st and 72nd sessions of the CTD held between 
May and December 2008.  Subsequently, the sub- item "Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) notification 
of Customs Union" had been introduced at the request of a developed Member at the 73rd Session held 
in March 2009.  He also recalled that some de veloped Members had not favoured moving forward 
with the process of reviewing the GCC Customs Uni on in the CTD until further clarification had been 
sought on the legal justification for such a procedure. 
12. Although discussions on possible ways forwar d had taken place between some Members, 
both bilaterally and plurilaterally, no option had yet been found in the CTD that was acceptable to all 
Members.  Nevertheless, discussions had been us eful in highlighting concerns which were both 
systemic and specific to the GCC notification.  The systemic concerns impinged on the Enabling Clause, the mandate and Terms of Reference (TORs) of the CTD, and the TM for RTAs.  The specific 
concerns emanated not only from suggestions from so me Members regarding th e consideration of the 
GCC Customs Union in a certain procedural way, bu t also from the notification, re-notification and 
withdrawal of notifications, as well as efforts to deny developing countries the right to notify under 
the Enabling Clause.  What was sought was an early  resolution of the issue so that the process of 
enhancing transparency for all RTAs could keep advancing.   
13. He said that the TM for RTAs, in its present form, did not provide procedures for RTAs with 
a dual notification.  Since the Chairman of th e Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR) had planned to 
commence his work on the review of the TM for RTAs, which was under provisional application, he 
indicated that one option could be for Members to  wait until the NGR completed its work.  However, 
in the interim, he believed that a more efficient option was for Members to decide in the CTD on how 
to deal with RTAs with a dual notification.  He clarified that the CTD's decision would be without 
prejudice to the final outcome of the NGR process of review of the TM for RTAs on transparency-
related issues.   
14. He recalled that some delegations had suggested that the concerns voiced by a number of 
developing Members should be discussed in the NGR.  He noted in this regard that the NGR had a 
mandate on transparency.  The Doha Declaration, in paragraph 29, mandate d negotiations aimed at 
"clarifying and improving disciplines and procedur es under the existing WTO provisions applying to 
regional trade agreements".  Paragraph 29 further ad ded that "The negotiations shall take into account 
the developmental aspects of regional trade agreements".   He cautioned that not all concerns raised in 
the communication from China, Egypt and India could be addressed in the NGR.  In addition, the issue had acquired added urgency since there had already been at least two other cases of dual notifications – those concerning the ASEAN-Kor ea Agreement and the India-Korea Agreement – 
which were a vindication of the systemic  concerns that had been raised.   
15. He said that the communication under considera tion represented a constructive effort to list 
some systemic and specific concerns that needed to  be addressed in order to facilitate a resolution of 
the issue.  He added that the CTD Chairman had asserted at the 69
th Session in May 2008 that the 
GCC Customs Union had been scheduled for factual consideration at a dedicated session of the CTD  WT/COMTD/M/80  
 Page 5 
 
 
  in October 2008.  Since no subsequent decision had b een taken in the CTD to interrupt that process, it 
was clear as to where the consideration of the GCC Customs Union should take place. 
16. The representative of Egypt  recalled that during the informal  consultations called by the CTD 
Chairman, his delegation had raised several systemic  concerns about the dual notification of the GCC 
Customs Union, and had raised questions on the im plications, both from a legal and a procedural 
standpoint.  However, he noted with regret that the discussions had not brought a resolution to the 
matter at hand.  They had only further validated th e systemic concerns raised in connection to the 
GCC Customs Union and its dual notification. 
17. He said that the joint submission by China, Egypt and India gave an account of the systemic 
and specific issues that needed to be discussed in  the CTD when considering the GCC Agreement.  
The systemic issues had been grouped into thr ee broad categories, which addressed the legal and 
procedural implications arising from the GCC dual no tification in the context of the Enabling Clause, 
the mandate and TORs of the CTD, and the TM fo r RTAs.  Another group of systemic issues with 
cross-cutting implications had also been lis ted in more detail in the submission.  
18. He indicated that the issue of "process" figur ed prominently in the context of the GCC 
Customs Union and had gained relevance in light of the developments surrounding the consideration 
of this RTA in the CTD in the past two years.  He po inted in particular to the concerns raised by some 
developed Members when this agreement was no tified exclusively on the basis of the Enabling 
Clause, which had led to the submission of anothe r notification under Article XXIV of the GATT.  He 
said that it had not been the practice to contest the legal basis on which developing Members notified 
their RTAs, especially when doing so in fulfilment of  their transparency commitments.  Furthermore, 
the undertaking to challenge the legal basis of  the GCC Customs Union notification under the 
Enabling Clause should have been made on the basis of  a factual presentation considered in the CTD.  
19. He also recalled that some Members had ar gued that the Enabling Clause nullified customs 
unions, which entailed provisions for the reduction or elimination of non-tariff measures.  In his view, 
to concede to such interpretations would not onl y have far-reaching legal ramifications but would 
impinge upon the scope of application of the En abling Clause.  The matter could clearly not be 
resolved by any such propositions, as the CTD's TO Rs mandated it to consider any questions arising 
from the application of the Enabling Clause and to  report to the General Council for appropriate 
action.  The decision to interpret or determine the scope of the Enabling Clause therefore lay with the 
General Council, and was not subject to alte rnate interpretations made in the CTD.  
20. He added that the GCC Agreement not only est ablished a precedent for dual notifications, as 
seen from the growing list of dual notifications on the agenda.  It also raised a unique predicament, 
wherein a Member's accession commitments to notif y the Agreement on the basis of Article XXIV 
was to have precedence over the rights of other Memb ers to notify the same agreement on the basis of 
the Enabling Clause.  This systemic concern impinged upon the CTD's prerogatives in considering RTAs between developing countries, and also ra ised procedural inconsistencies as far as the 
application of the TM for RTAs was concerned.  
21. It was evident that the TM for RTAs provide d no procedures for the consideration of RTAs 
with a dual notification.  As such, and until the time th at a review of the provisional application of the 
TM had been carried out, the consideration of th e GCC notification under the Enabling Clause needed 
to proceed in the CTD.  This systemic issue coul d not be resolved by a mere indication that a dual 
notification should be dealt with by the CRTA.  If an RTA notified under the Enabling Clause was to 
be considered by the CRTA, it needed to be done  according to the procedures and TORs provided by 
the CTD to the CRTA.  Such TORs were of particular importance, given that the TM for RTAs did not provide for any procedures for the consideration of RTAs with dual notifications.  Finally, he 
requested that all systemic concerns be promin ently addressed while considering the GCC Customs WT/COMTD/M/80  
Page 6  
 
  Union dual notification issue.  His delegation looked forward to discussing these issues, as well as 
their procedural and legal implications, under the present agenda item. 
22. The representative of China
 associated himself with the statements made by India and Egypt.  
He recalled that the GCC issue had been discussed, either under the agenda item "Other Business" or 
under the agenda item "notifications under the Enabli ng Clause" for more than two years.  He said 
that there was no intention of prolonging the di scussion on this matter and make the GCC issue a 
standing item on the CTD's agenda.  On the contrary, tireless efforts were being made to find a satisfactory solution so as to appropriately address legitimate concerns, especially regarding the legal 
and procedural implications of the dual notificati on.  The purpose of the communication by China, 
Egypt and India was to help Members to enhan ce their understanding of the systemic and specific 
issues arising out of the dual notification of the GCC,  with a view to facilitating the achievement of an 
expeditious resolution. 
23. He stressed that the rights of developing Members under the Enabling Clause needed to be 
respected.  In this regard, he said that the Enabling Clause was one of the effective tools available to  
developing Members to allow them to better integr ate into the multilateral trading system and to 
achieve development goals.  Article 2(c) of th e Enabling Clause was being increasingly used by 
developing Members to foster sound relationships and to engage in trade liberalization with each 
other, a trend that needed to be encouraged.  In whatever way the GCC issue was ultimately resolved, 
he said that there should be no negative impact  on the rights of developing Members under the 
Enabling Clause.  He added that th e central role of the CTD in deve lopment-related issues needed to 
be maintained and strengthened.  In line with its TORs, the CTD served as a focal point for the 
consideration and coordination of work on de velopment. The Committee also considered any 
questions which might arise with regard to either th e application or the use of special provisions in the 
Multilateral Trade Agreements and related Ministeria l Decisions in favour of developing Members.  
He said that the GCC issue, as a development issu e concerning the application of the Enabling Clause, 
was certainly within the competen ce of the CTD.  China understood th at the CTD needed to consult 
with relevant bodies in the WTO, but it did not d eem acceptable for the CTD to pass its duty on to 
other WTO bodies.  Finally, he highlighted the im portance and urgency of resolving the GCC issue, 
particularly in view of the presence of two othe r cases of dual notifications on the agenda for the 
present meeting.  He called for an acceleration of th e work of the Committee so as to provide utmost 
clarity on both the legal and procedural aspects in re lation to these and future notifications of RTAs.   
24. The representative of the United States
 said that, based on an initial review of the submission 
by China, Egypt and India, his delegation did not see any specific issues related to the GCC Customs 
Union notification.  He expressed concern that the GCC Customs Union was being discussed at all, as 
the GCC item had been dealt with according to pro cedures and the matter had been resolved.  In the 
view of his delegation, it was evident that the recent discussions in the CTD and the submission by 
China, Egypt and India did not concern the GCC Customs Union, and that it was a procedural 
inaccuracy to continue to list the present sub-item on the agenda in its current form.  Rather, the 
discussion was systemic in nature, and outside the scope of agenda item C.  The US was willing to 
hear Members' concerns on systemic issues, but no t under the present sub-item.  He also noted that 
any specific discussions on the rules for RTAs ultimate ly belonged in the NGR, and not in the CTD or 
any other Committee.  
25. The representative of the European Union  noted with concern that the sub-item relating to the 
GCC Customs Union notification remained on the CTD's agenda.  He said that Saudi Arabia had 
re-notified the Agreement under Article XXIV of the GATT and that the GCC Customs Union was 
now being considered in the CRTA.  This had been  announced by the CTD Chairman at the meeting 
of 8 December 2009.  The EU, therefore, requested that the present sub-item be removed from the 
agenda of the CTD.  The recent communication fro m China, Egypt and India confirmed that some 
Members insisted on maintaining the present sub-ite m on the CTD's agenda merely to address their  WT/COMTD/M/80  
 Page 7 
 
 
  systemic concerns in the CTD.  The EU was ready to discuss the implications of a dual notification of 
a given agreement under two different legal provisi ons.  However, any systemic discussion on the 
clarification of rules governing RTAs – includ ing the scope of the Enabling Clause and GATT 
Article XXIV – needed to take place in the NGR , where the TM for RTAs had been negotiated and 
where any subsequent reviews would take place.  The EU looked forward to a discussion on the 
communication from China, Egypt and India in the NGR.   
26. The representative of Australia  said that her delegation would be considering the 
communication by China, Egypt and India in more detail and might provide further comments in due course.  However, an initial review of the document had led to the conclusion that it related primarily 
to systemic issues arising from dual notifications.  Australia was of the view that these issues needed 
to be considered in the NGR, particularly because their resolution would have implications for work 
in both the CTD and the CRTA.  Australia did not c onsider the CTD as an appropriate forum to reach 
decisions that would affect the CTD and other Comm ittees, even on an interim basis.  To the extent 
that the systemic issues might be considered in the CTD, her delegation wished to see them captured 
under a more appropriate agenda item, so as to  enable effective preparation for discussions. 
27. The representative of Japan
 said that his delegation would need some time to consider the 
submission by China, Egypt and India.  He said that notification issues should be dealt with in 
accordance with the TM for RTAs, and s hould therefore be discussed in the NGR. 
28. The representative of Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN , specified that his comments would be 
preliminary in nature, as the communication from Chin a, Egypt and India was still being analyzed in 
capitals.  He said that ASEAN welcomed the comm unication, which sought further clarification on a 
number of important systemic issues.  The ASEAN countries shared the proponents' view that some 
of these issues needed to be discussed and clarified.  He cited in particular the legal and procedural 
implications of the dual notification, as well as the roles of the CTD and the CRTA.  ASEAN reserved the right to comment at a later stage on the appropria te forum to discuss the issue of dual notifications 
and its implications, although it was of the view th at the CTD was the most appropriate forum to 
discuss development-related issues, including the impl ementation of special and differential treatment 
(S&D) provisions and the Enabling Clause.  Finall y, he indicated that ASEAN would welcome the 
opportunity to participate in any info rmal consultations on this issue.  
29. The representative of India
 said that the communication under consideration referred to both 
systemic and specific issues.  He explained that the main specific issue regarding the GCC Customs 
Union was how to consider the customs union.  This  was an issue that had eluded consensus in the 
CTD for over two years.  India felt that unless this  specific issue was resolved, the present sub-item 
had to remain on the CTD's agenda.  On the sugg estion that the NGR would be a more appropriate 
forum to discuss such matters, he reiterated th at the NGR had a mandate on transparency in 
accordance with paragraph 29 and it indeed consider ed some systemic issues.  However, a careful 
reading of the communication would indicate that sev eral systemic issues fell outside the purview of 
the NGR.  Therefore, the CTD was the best foru m to discuss the issues that had been raised.  
30. The representative of Egypt , referring to the request by some delegations to rename the 
sub-item under discussion, said that the dual notif ication precedent had been created by the GCC 
Customs Union.  In this light, he did not unders tand the insistence on dropping the reference to the 
GCC Agreement, since a valid notification under th e Enabling Clause had been made.  If any Member 
wished to have an agenda item concerning systemic issues arising out of dual notifications more 
generally, they could do so in line with the rules of procedure of the CTD.  In response to some 
delegations' views that the communication that ha d been submitted was not specific to the GCC 
Customs Union, he said that the numerous issues rais ed had been categorized in the communication in 
order to help Members better understand the proponen ts' concerns and the specific issues relating to 
the GCC Agreement.  Finally, on th e best forum for discussion of this  matter, he suggested that if WT/COMTD/M/80  
Page 8  
 
  there continued to be disagreement on the CTD' s mandate and its TORs, clarification should be 
sought from the General Council.  
31. The representative of China
 said that there were certainly some systemic implications of the 
GCC Customs Unions notification.  However, there were also several specific issues contained in the 
communication under consideration.  How the accessi on commitments of a Member would impact on 
the right of other Members within an RTA was a legitimate concern.  He also pointed to the 
importance of clarifying the relative roles of the CTD and CRTA in the consideration of an RTA.  
China saw merit in continuing discussions on th ese issues in the CTD under the present sub-item. 
32. The representative of Canada  said that the communication from China, Egypt and India was 
currently under consideration in his capital.  Cana da reserved the right to make comments on it in the 
future. 
33. The Chairman  noted that there was no agreement on how to proceed with the dual notification 
issue.  He said that he wished to remind Members that at the 76th Session of the CTD held on 
12 October 2009, the previous Chairman of the CTD had reported to the Committee what had been 
conveyed to him on a possible way forward on the G CC Customs Union.  The previous Chairman had 
firstly informed the Committee th at the Agreement had been re- notified under GATT Article XXIV 
and that his understanding now was that the GCC Agreement would be considered in the CRTA in 
accordance with the provisions of the TM for RTAs , and that the conclusion of this consideration 
would be reported to the CTD for informational purpo ses.  The previous Chairman had also clarified 
that the process for the consideration of the GCC Agreement would be undertaken without prejudice 
to the rights and obligations of Members under GA TT Article XXIV and the Enabling Clause.  On the 
basis of this way forward, the previous Chairman  had proposed that the sub-item concerning the GCC 
notification be taken off the CTD's agenda and that  the CTD revert to this issue once the CRTA had 
concluded its examination.   
34. The Chairman said that, in th e discussion that followed, Members did not seem to disagree 
with the compromise that had been reached between  the parties on the way that the GCC notification 
should be considered, but did not agree to taking the item off the CTD's agenda.  In a certain way, the 
issue had got linked to the request for updating th e Secretariat's Legal Note on Regional Trade 
Arrangements under the Enabling Clause, since some Me mbers felt that the systemic issue related to 
dual notifications needed to be clarified first.  He said that the best way forward would be for 
Members to reflect on this matter further, after c onsidering the submission by China, Egypt and India 
in more detail.  He suggested that he could then  call an open-ended informal meeting of the CTD.  
35. The representative of India  said that his delegation was agreeable to the Chairman holding an 
open-ended informal meeting.  At the same time, India wished to put on record that the possibilities 
for consideration of the GCC Customs Union menti oned by the previous Chairman of the CTD were 
only possibilities, and that no decision had been taken.   Therefore, he asked that this issue also be 
addressed in the open-ended session.  
36. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation was open to further discussion 
on this issue.  However, he wished to reiterate th at the US had not agreed to accept a standing agenda 
item on this issue, nor would it in the future.   
37. The representative of Egypt  said that his delegation was open to the idea of having an 
open-ended informal meeting.  He was aware that at the 76th Session a possible way forward had been 
presented to the previous CTD Chairman.  However, some Members had continued to state that there 
were systemic concerns over this possible way forward.  It was for this reason that the present 
sub-item  remained on the CTD's agenda.  As both systemic and specific issues with regard to the  WT/COMTD/M/80  
 Page 9 
 
 
  GCC Agreement remained outstanding, Egypt wish ed to see the present sub-item maintained on the 
CTD's agenda.  
38. The Chairman  said that his reference to the proceedings of the 76th Session of the CTD 
reflected his interpretation, which was based on th e minutes of the meeting.  He suggested that a 
distinction be made between the specific issues relating to the GCC Customs Union, and the dual 
notification issue, which went beyond the GCC Agreement per se .  If China, Egypt and India wished 
to have an agenda item relating to their communi cation, he asked whether the item could carry the 
same name as the title of their communication.  
39. The representative of Angola  suggested that it might be better for the Chairman to hold 
informal consultations on whether the present sub-item should remain on the CTD's agenda, or 
whether it should be replaced with another agenda item. 
40. The representative of Australia  expressed concern with the Chairman's proposal for the title of 
the agenda item.  She said that the systemic issu es went beyond the GCC notification, and did not 
relate specifically to it.  Accordingly, any agenda  item that linked the systemic issues specifically to 
the GCC notification would be problematic for Australia.  
41. The representative of India  pointed out that the communication under consideration had been 
prepared to facilitate a resolution of the issue, a nd not to replace it as an agenda item.  A decision 
needed to be taken on how to consider the GCC Customs Union.  Therefore, until this issue was 
resolved, India did not see any reason for the present sub-item to be removed from the CTD's agenda.  
42. The representative of Egypt  said that his delegation wished to see the same sub-item appear 
on the agenda of the next CTD meeting.  While th e submission under consideration contained specific 
issues relating to the GCC notification, he did not believe it was possible to separate what was 
systemic in nature to what was specific.  He recognized that there had been a number of dual 
notifications since the GCC notification, but there were also issues specific to the GCC notification 
that needed to be addressed.  
43. The representative of the United States  expressed appreciation for the Chairman's reference to 
the minutes of the 76th Session.  He said that it was clear that there had been no disagreement on 
having the CRTA consider the GCC Customs Union.  While the US could take  under consideration an 
agenda item referencing the systemic concerns tie d to dual notifications, it could not agree to the 
reference to "specific" issues related to the GCC.  He added that he would n eed to consult with his 
capital for further guidance.  He also reiterated that the communication under consideration appeared 
to only address systemic concerns, and that the GCC Customs Union notification had already been 
dealt with according to procedures. 
44. The representative of the European Union  said that there had been no disagreement at the 
76th Session on the way forward in the considerati on of the GCC Customs Union, which entailed 
having the Agreement considered in the CRTA.  While  his delegation was open to participating in an 
informal open-ended meeting, he indicated that it had a problem with keeping any reference to the 
GCC notification on the CTD's agenda.  
45. The representative of China  said that his delegation's position remained unchanged.  Since the 
issues concerning the GCC notification had not been r esolved in the CTD, Chin a wished to maintain 
the present sub-item on the CTD's agenda.  Furtherm ore, China could not accept that the sub-item be 
replaced by an agenda item with the same title as the communication under consideration.  On the 
suggestion to separate the systemic concerns from the specific issues, he doubted that it would be 
feasible, since the issues were interlinked.  He  indicated, however, that China was open to further 
discussion in informal consultations.  WT/COMTD/M/80  
Page 10  
 
  46. The representative of Ecuador
 believed that it was important to maintain the present sub-item 
on the CTD's agenda.  His delegation had looked at  the communication from China, Egypt and India, 
and felt that some important elements had been highl ighted.  While a more in-depth analysis of the 
submission was being undertaken in his capital, he indicated that his delegation recognized the logic 
and the foundations of the ideas contained in the submission.  The present discussion highlighted the 
fact that there were issues that n eeded to be clarified, in particular with regard to the mandates of the 
CTD and the NGR, and with regard to any implic ations for developing Members' rights under the 
Enabling Clause.  His delegation looked forward to  working to clarify these matters in formal and 
informal meetings. 
47. The Chairman  said that, having listened to the vari ous interventions, he would start his 
informal consultations in a small-group format. 
48. The representatives of Brazil , Korea  and Canada  expressed their delegations' interest to 
participate in the small-group informal consultations.  
49. The Chairman  said that any other delegations that wished to participate in the small-group 
consultations could let the Secretariat know. 
50. The representative of India  said that he wished to make an intervention regarding the 
India-Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA).  He informed the Committee 
that the CEPA covered trade in goods – including rul es of origin, origin procedures, trade facilitation 
and customs cooperation – trade in services, invest ment, and bilateral cooperation in such areas as 
competition policy, intellectual property rights,  energy, information and telecommunication 
technology, and audio-visual production.  With rega rd to the notification of the CEPA, he said that 
India had notified the goods part of the Agreem ent under paragraph 4(a) of the Enabling Clause and 
the services part under Article V:7(a) of the Ge neral Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).  
Documents WT/COMTD/N/36 and S/C/N/570 dated 29 Se ptember 2010 referred to this notification.  
He added that the Agreement had been earlier no tified by Korea in documents WT/REG286/N/1 and 
S/C/N/558 dated 1 July 2010, and wished to clarify in  this regard that that Korea's notification under 
GATT Article XXIV had been done un ilaterally and without India's c oncurrence.  As a developing 
country Member of the WTO, India had exercised its right to notify the CEPA under the Enabling 
Clause. 
51. He remarked that several of the systemic issu es that were raised in the discussion on the GCC 
Customs Union notification were relevant to th e India-Korea CEPA as well.  The increasing number 
of dual notifications highlighted the urgency that Members needed to accord in deciding how such 
RTAs should be considered.  India was hopeful that an early decision on procedures for the 
consideration of the GCC Customs Union would pave the way for the consideration of the 
India-Korea CEPA.  
52. The representative of Korea  said that his delegation was of the view that it was desirable for 
the parties to an RTA to notify the Agreement toge ther, and in the same forum.  However, legally 
speaking, Members' obligations under the WTO Agre ements were to notify, but not necessarily to 
notify together.  In particular, Korea's interpreta tion of GATT Article XXIV was that a Member might 
choose to notify its RTA separately from other parties to the same RTA.  He said that Korea had tried 
to come to an agreement with the other parties to the ASEAN-Korea Agreement and the India-Korea 
Agreement on where to notify the RTAs, but had faile d.  If the parties to an RTA did not agree on 
certain issues regarding notification, they were left  with two options – either to notify separately, or 
not to notify at all.  Since Korea took its notifi cation obligations seriously, it had decided to notify 
separately.  However, Korea did not want the dual not ification issue to become controversial either in 
the CTD or in the CRTA.  His delegation hoped th at the concerns arising from dual notifications  WT/COMTD/M/80  
 Page 11 
 
 
  would be resolved in the appropriate forum, fo r example the NGR, through close consultations among 
Members.  
53. The representative of Egypt  said that his delegation wanted the CTD to proceed with the 
factual consideration of the RTAs that had been  notified under the Enabling Clause.  However, he 
noted that a new systemic issue had been voiced by Korea regarding which party to an RTA should 
notify it.  If the Chairman was to hold any inform al consultations other than the ones on the GCC 
notification, his delegation wished to participate in them.  
54. The representative of the United States  reiterated that any systemic issues on the rules for 
RTAs would have to be discussed in the NGR.  
55. The representative of China  asked for clarification from the Chairman or the Secretariat on 
how the consideration of RTAs with a dual notification would take place.  
56. The Chairman  said that these questions would be addressed in the informal consultations that 
he would be holding.  
57. The Committee took note  of all interventions. 
D. DECISION ON TRANSPARENCY FOR PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS  
 - GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION OF 14 DECEMBER 2006  (WT/L/672) 
 - TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM FOR PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS - DRAFT 
  PROPOSAL BY BRAZIL , CHINA , INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES (JOB(08)/103/REV.31) 
58. The Chairman  said that the 14 December 2006 Gene ral Council Decision on "Transparency 
for Preferential Trade Arrangements", contained in document WT/L/672, had 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 
General Council had since extended the deadline to its  December 2010 meeting.  He recalled that at 
the General Council meeting in July 2010, he ha d reported on the important progress that had been 
made in the small-group consultations  that he had been holding.  He had conveyed his optimism that 
the CTD would shortly be in a position to transmit to  the General Council a proposed text on a TM for 
PTAs.  He now wished to inform Members that fu rther progress had been made on this matter just one 
working day before the present meeting.  In par ticular, as an outcome to a small-group consultation 
that he had held, the proponents – Brazil, China, India and the US – had circulated a third revision to their draft proposal – contained in document JOB(08)/103/Rev.3.  
59. The representative of Brazil, on behalf of the proponents
, expressed satisfaction with the 
conclusion of the negotiations on the TM for PTAs.  He said that an agreement had been reached in 
principle three years after Brazil and India had jo intly tabled a non-paper, circulated in document 
JOB(07)/142, calling for the establishment of a TM for PTAs.  China and the US had subsequently joined as co-sponsors.  He thanked all the delegati ons that had constructively participated in the 
drafting process or had contributed comments and s uggestions, and conveyed his appreciation for the 
efforts of the Chairman.  He also acknowledged the support and assistance provided by the 
Secretariat.  
                                                     
 
1 As the Chairman indicated at the beginning of the meeting, the appropriate document for 
consideration under this item was JOB(08)/103/Rev.3, and not the Rev.2 version which appeared on the draft 
agenda. WT/COMTD/M/80  
Page 12  
 
  60. He said that the purpose of th e Mechanism was to enhance Me mbers' understanding of PTAs, 
and to increase the transparency of the many ex isting PTAs, by laying out certain procedural 
requirements.  Although there were several simila rities between the provisional TM for RTAs and the 
TM for PTAs, he noted that RTAs and PTAs had substa ntive differences.  They were different in their 
nature, given that one was reciprocal and the other was unilateral, as well as in their legal basis.  In 
particular, one was based on GATT Ar ticle XXIV and Article 2(c) of the Enabling Clause, while the 
other was based on Articles 2(a), (b) and (d) of  the Enabling Clause as  well as on additional 
provisions.  The two types of arrangements were also  different in their operation and in other aspects, 
which entailed different notificati on and reporting obligations.  In th e text under consideration, he 
highlighted that the notification and reporting requirements had been specified so as to keep the 
burden on the notifying Members to a minimum, without reducing the necessary level of ambition of 
the TM.  The text also took into account the concer ns of developing countries, and especially the 
beneficiaries of PTAs, in relation to particular tec hnical constraints, as well as in relation to requests 
for adequate participation in the consideration process.  He added that the text reflected suggestions 
and inputs received from a large number of delegatio ns in both small-group a nd open-ended meetings.  
The proponents believed that the text was ready to be approved by the CTD and subsequently 
submitted to the General Council for adoption. 
61. The representative of the United States
 supported Brazil's comments.  He thanked the 
Chairman for his leadership in the informal c onsultation process, as well as Members for their 
constructive engagement.  In addition to the other proponents, he made spec ific reference in this 
regard to the EU, the ACP Group, El Salvador and Barbados.  The US supported the conclusion of the 
work on the TM for PTAs in time for the upcoming General Council meeting of 21 October, where it 
was hoped that the TM for PTAs could be adopted.  
62. The representative of India  joined Brazil and the US in thanking the Members that had 
participated in the small-group meetings.  He re marked that the growing size of the small-group 
meetings spoke of the kind of appeal that the PTAs TM had for Members.  India looked forward to an 
early adoption of the text under consideration. 
63. The representative of China  supported the interventions of the previous speakers, and 
expressed optimism that the mandate given to the CT D could be fulfilled in tim e for the next meeting 
of the General Council.  
64. The representative of the European Union  expressed appreciation for the successful 
conclusion of the small-group inform al consultations called by the Chairman, in which the EU had 
been actively engaged.  He also thanked the co-sponsors for having constructively engaged with 
Members and for having shown flexibility when needed .  He said that part of the package which was 
being presented to the membership concerned para graph 26 of document JOB(08)/103/Rev.3, which 
had appeared as paragraph 27 in the previous revision of the document.  A compromise had been brokered by the Chairman on the reference to the TM for RTAs, which had disappeared from the third 
revision of the text.  The compromise was clear and simple.  In particular, the EU and all co-sponsors 
individually would, at the time when the TM for PT As was adopted in the General Council, make the 
following statement for the record:  "Delegation X recalls that during the negotiations on the TM for 
PTAs, it was considered that a decision on its pe rmanent application would take into account the 
status of the TM for RTAs".  While considerable flexibility had been demonstrated on all sides, the 
EU had had to come a long way before being able to  accept the final text.  In order for the package to 
not unravel, he said that his delegation trusted that the statements by the co-sponsors and by the EU at 
the General Council would be noted by the member ship and would not give rise to debate or 
counter-statements.  
65. Finally, he reminded Members that, as of 1 December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty had entered 
into force.  In light of the Treaty, the EU was still  considering the full implications as to its internal  WT/COMTD/M/80  
 Page 13 
 
 
  constitutional procedures.  While his delegation si ncerely hoped to conclude internal procedures 
before the 21 October meeting of the General Council,  he noted that there may not be enough time to 
conclude the necessary internal procedures before this date.  
66. The representative of Chinese Taipei  highlighted the importance of establishing a TM for 
PTAs.  He expressed his delegation's wish that the CTD could agree to a text which could be 
forwarded to the General Council in due time.  Chinese Taipei remained  committed to working 
closely with the Chairman to that end. 
67. The representative of Japan  said that the TM for PTAs would play an important role in 
enhancing transparency.  Japan welcomed the current  revised text and supported the adoption of the 
Mechanism by the General Council.  
68. The representative of El Salvador  said that delegations had show ed the right determination to 
compromise in order to find a solution.  El Salvador supported the adoption of the TM for PTAs by the General Council.  The Mechanism would allow the WTO, and in particular the CTD, to consider 
issues relating to transparency in PTAs in a practical way.  
69. The representative of Canada
 expressed his support for the TM for PTAs.  He said that 
Canada sought clarification as to wh ether changes to the Harmonized Syst em that did not affect tariffs 
were to be notified under the Mechanism.  
70. The representative of Brazil , in response to the intervention by Canada, said that many 
questions would have to be answered as the Mechan ism began to be implemente d.  However, he felt 
that a case such as the one described by Canada would not have to be notified under the Mechanism.  
71. The representative of Saint Lucia, on behalf of the ACP Group , expressed his appreciation for 
the constructive approach that had been adopted to  finding solutions to the concerns that had been 
raised by some delegations.  He looked forwar d to an expeditious adoption of the PTAs TM. 
72. The representative of Venezuela  said that she would need to hear back from her capital on the 
text under consideration.  She hope d to have satisfactory results be fore the General Council meeting 
of 21 October. 
73. The representative of New Zealand  said that her delegation would endorse the text to be 
adopted by the General Council.  
74. The Chairman  said that it was clear that the text as contained in document JOB(08)/103/Rev.3 
could be approved by the CTD.  He said that th e text would now be issued as a formal CTD 
document, and would be transmitted to the Genera l Council in time for its meeting of 21 October.2 
75. It was so agreed . 
E. REVIEW OF STEPS T AKEN TO PROVIDE DUTY -FREE AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET ACCESS TO 
LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  
76. The Chairman  said that an item concerning the Hong Kong Decision on duty-free and 
quota-free (DFQF) market access for LDCs had been on the CTD's agenda since early 2006.  Under 
this item, delegations had provided information on the steps they we re taking, or had already taken, to 
provide DFQF market access to LDCs.  Written co mmunications by some Members had also been 
                                                      
2 The text was circulated in document WT/COMTD/71. WT/COMTD/M/80  
Page 14  
 
  considered.  The CTD had to date undertaken four of its mandated annual reviews of the 
implementation of the Hong Kong Decision. 
77. The representative of India
 said that he wished to provide an update on India's Duty Free 
Tariff Preference (DFTP) Scheme for LDCs.  Taking in to consideration the exhortations made in the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, India was the first developing country to announce a 
comprehensive DFQF scheme for preferential market  access for all LDCs.  The DFTP Scheme for the 
LDCs had been announced by the Indian Prime Minister on the occasion of the India-Africa Forum 
Summit in April 2008.  The scheme covered all 49 LDCs, including LDCs outside the African 
continent and LDCs that were not WTO Members.  Utmost care had been taken to ensure that the 
DFTP Scheme was not a mere token measure, but one which provided effective and substantial 
market access to products of export interest to LDCs.   
78. The Scheme was comprehensive, simple and non-reciprocal.  It provided preferential market 
access on tariff lines that comprised 92.5 per cent of  global exports of all LDCs.  Products of 
immediate interest to LDCs which were covere d under the DFTP Scheme included cotton, cocoa, 
aluminium ores, copper ores, cashew nuts, cane-s ugar, ready-made garments, fish fillets and 
non-industrial diamonds.  Only 6 per cent of lines were  in the exclusion list of the Scheme.  The rules 
of origin stipulated a change in tariff heading plus  30 per cent domestic value addition.  The Scheme 
was procedurally simple to operate and required i ndividual LDCs to submit a letter of intent and the 
list of agencies or officials authorized to issue the certificate of origin.  To date, 25 LDCs had 
submitted letters of intent, of wh ich 18 had submitted details of ag encies which would be responsible 
for issuing certificates of origin.   
79. India would in due course carry out additional outreach activities in order to disseminate the 
benefits of the Scheme for LDCs.  India was also ready to dovetail the Scheme with other technical 
assistance activities that it provided  to LDCs.  For example, th e Centre for WTO Studies in 
New Delhi would be organizing a two-week capac ity building programme on WTO issues for trade 
ministry officials from all LDCs.  The course would be funded by the Indian Technical and Economic 
Cooperation Programme.  India urged the remaining LD Cs to finalize their internal processes and to 
intimate to India their willingness to benefit from the Scheme.  Given India's large market and the 
demand for products of interest to LDCs, his delega tion was confident that the Scheme would play a 
key role in ensuring that the share of LDCs in  India's imports grew at an accelerated pace. 
80. The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil had decided in December 2009 to grant DFQF 
access for products from LDCs.  Brazil's programme w ould initially cover 80 per cent of tariff lines 
and would be subsequently expa nded in successive instalments until 100 per cent of tariff lines were 
covered.  For this purpose, Brazil had created an  inter-ministerial working group that had been 
meeting on a regular basis to discuss the implemen tation of the programme.  The two main issues 
under discussion were the legal instrument that w ould be used to incorporate the programme in 
Brazil's legal system, and the expansion of the sch eme beyond 80 per cent of tariff lines right from the 
start.  Since more detailed discussions would be required, Brazil had not yet announced the 
implementation of the programme.  The CTD would be kept informed of the progress made in the 
inter-ministerial working group and of the eventual implementation of the scheme. 
81. The representative of Zambia, on behalf of the LDC Group , thanked delegations for the 
updates that had been provided on their preferential schemes for LDCs.  She said that there was no 
doubt that the enhancement of market access was a cr itical step in the integration of LDCs into the 
global economy, and in this light thanked those Me mbers that were providing enhanced market access 
for products originating from LDCs.  She recalled that during the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, 
a commitment had been made for Members to notif y on an annual basis the implementation of the 
schemes adopted under Decision 36 contained in Anne x F for the CTD to annually review the steps 
taken to provide DFQF market access to the LDCs and to report to the General Council for  WT/COMTD/M/80  
 Page 15 
 
 
  appropriate action.  While the LDCs welcomed a nd appreciated the steps that had been taken by 
several Members to enhance market access for produc ts originating from LDCs, she noted that there 
was still more work to be done by the developed countries and developing countries in a position to 
do so to fully and effectively implement the decision,  including the simplification and transparency of 
rules of origin.  The LDC Group noted with concern that very limited information since the last CTD 
meeting had been given by delegations on the steps taken.  The LDCs called upon Members to live up 
to the spirit and letter of the mandate in the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
82. She went on to say that the LDC Group looked forward to engaging constructively with 
Members on the outstanding issues relating to DFQF market access and rules of origin.  She also highlighted the need for appropriate technical assi stance and capacity building support to LDCs.  To 
this end, the LDC Group appreciated the contributi ons made by various cooper ating partners to the 
Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund, th e Enhanced Integrated Framework and other 
bilateral arrangements targeted at  enhancing the capacities of LDCs. 
83. The representative of China
 said that, as of 1 July 2010, China was granting zero-tariff 
treatment on 4,762 tariff lines for products im ported from the 33 LDCs that had completed the 
exchange of letters for that purpose.  A further eight LDCs would enjoy the same treatment once the 
exchange of letters was completed.   The relevant information coul d be found on the website of the 
Chinese Ministry of Finance:  www.mof.gov.cn .  China had identified the tariff lines in question 
together with its LDC partners, targeting the ite ms on which LDCs had demonstrated actual and 
potential export capacity.  The tariff lines accounted fo r 98.2 per cent of all LDCs' exports to China in 
value terms in 2008.  China intended to continue to  expand the scope of preferences to the LDCs with 
the aim of achieving the final objective of incl uding 95 per cent of tariff lines under zero-tariff 
treatment.  
84. The representative of the European Union  said that the European Commission had been 
working since 2005 on a more development-friendly, horiz ontal approach to the EU's rules of origin.  
The new template for developing countries would be  the rules of origin that would apply from 
1 January 2011 to the EU's Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) scheme.  The new rules of 
origin would be more relaxed than the previous ones, especially for LDCs.  In the context of the 
Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), he said th at rules of origin were negotiated individually 
for each EPA.  These encouraged the intra-regional processing of trade.  For example, a Caribbean 
baker could source flour from around the region and s till export at preferential rate to the EU.  The 
EU was ready to have experts from Brussels give further explanations, if Members so wished.  
85. The Committee took note  of all the interventions.  
F. PARAGRAPH 51 OF THE DOHA DECLARATION ON IDENTIFYING AND DEBATING 
DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS , IN ORDER TO HELP ACHIEVE THE 
OBJECTIVE OF HAVING SUSTAINABLE DE VELOPMENT APPROPRIATELY REFLECTED 
(WT/COMTD /W/143/REV.4) 
86. The Chairman  said that Members had agreed earlier in 2010 that the Secretariat would update 
its paper on the Developmental Aspects of the Doha Round of Negotiations.  The update had now 
been completed, and had been circulated as document WT/COMTD/W/143/Rev.4.  He said that 
Members had in the past recognized the value of the pa per.  In this regard, an update was welcome in 
order to reflect developments in the negotiations si nce the last revision of the paper in May 2007.   
87. The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for its work in presenting the 
state of play of the negotiations and the various  positions of Members in a succinct and balanced 
manner.  The Secretariat paper was a useful  document which showed the degree to which 
development considerations permeated  all aspects of the WTO's work.  He said that he wished to WT/COMTD/M/80  
Page 16  
 
  make a few points about the US' objectives in the Doha Round, and the US' views on the process.  He 
began by noting that the US was committed to achie ving new market opening in the Doha Round that 
would generate new trade flows for all countries.  This was how trade could best contribute to 
long-term economic growth and development.  The US strongly believed that new commitments that 
expanded open markets and promoted the rule of law were not anti-development.  For the Doha 
Round to be a true development round, and to meet  the Doha mandate, the outcome would have to 
deliver meaningful benefits in terms of new ma rket opening and economic opportunities.  The US had 
been continually engaged with Members in various configurations, and would continue to do so to 
ensure a strong conclusion of the Round that resu lted in the new economic growth necessary to spur 
development, particularly in the poorest countries. 
88. He went on to say that the Secretariat paper ri ghtly put the benefits of substantial tariff 
reductions and liberalization foremost in its discussions  of the possible gains to developing countries.  
In the US' view, the core contribution to developm ent in the Doha Round would come through global 
market-opening and the creation of new trade flows.  However, there were some clarifications and 
corrections that were deemed necessary in the Secretariat document.  
89. While the US appreciated the Secretariat's initiativ e to try to quantify the specific benefits that 
could be accomplished through the Round, he cautioned that this was not possible at this time, given 
in particular the large number of unknowns in the u ltimate results of the Round.   For example, in the 
studies cited in the paper, there was no accounting of how the flexibilities currently under discussion 
in the draft agriculture and non-agricultural ma rket access (NAMA) negotiating texts would affect 
overall market opening in these areas.  The US agreed  with the basic premise that the potential gains 
from the results of the Round could be significant, if Members built upon what was currently on the 
table.  However, due to data methodology issues, in  particular in the study by the Peterson Institute 
for International Economics, the US did not believe  that it was accurate or appropriate to include 
dollar-figure estimates from this study in a Secretaria t document.  He, therefore, requested that the 
specific data drawn from this study in  paragraphs 31 and 51 be deleted.  
90. With respect to the agriculture section of the pa per, he noted that paragraph 13 stated that for 
most issues the modalities could be considered "stable" .  This could be read to imply that most of the 
agriculture negotiating text was agreed, which was not an accurate reflection of the status of the negotiations.  The US believed that the discussion of the status of the negotiations should remain 
factual rather than speculative, a nd that this sentence needed to be  deleted.  The discussion in the 
Secretariat’s paper of the issues currently under review in the negotiating sessions provided sufficient 
status of the negotiating text.  With respect to the second sentence of paragraph 28, for accuracy and 
clarity purposes, the US requested that the quota tion from the Hong Kong Declaration be expanded.  
In particular, it was requested that the sentence s hould be modified to read:  "All Members involved 
have emphasized that they remain committed to fi nding a solution that addresses the issue of cotton 
'ambitiously, expeditiously and specifically, … in rela tion to all trade-distorting policies affecting the 
sector in all three pillars of market access, dom estic support and export comp etition', consistent with 
the commitments made at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in December 2005". 
91. In the NAMA section of the report, the US requested that the phrase "included possible 
landing zones in some areas" be deleted from the second sentence of paragraph 38, since the reference 
to "laid out possible modalities" was a more accurate  description.  Pointing to the third sentence of 
paragraph 39, he believed that there was a typo, and that one reference to "developing countries" 
needed to be changed to "developed countries".  With  respect to the first sentence of paragraph 40, the 
US requested that the text "progress made" be replaced  with "current status".  Given the draft nature 
of the modalities, the US found the reference to progress to be too forward leaning.   
92. The representative of Zambia, on behalf of the LDC Group  said that the Secretariat paper 
provided a precise overview of the negotiations, hi ghlighting the areas of interest to developing  WT/COMTD/M/80  
 Page 17 
 
 
  countries and LDCs and the possible gains in the vari ous negotiating areas.  The issues highlighted by 
the Secretariat with regard to the possible gain s for LDCs, if a development-oriented Round was 
concluded, were not new.  It was precisely because of these reasons that the LDCs continued to call 
for the conclusion of the Round and for an early implementation of some pressing issues, including decisions relating to DFQF market access, the simp lification of rules of origin, an immediate and 
lasting solution to the issue of cotton, and the conc lusion of the modalities for the special treatment of 
LDCs in the services negotiations.  There could be no  sustainable development for LDCs if the issues 
of interest to them, as highlighted in the Secretariat paper, were not dealt with effectively.  In this 
light, she said that the conclusion of the Round should not be delayed any further. 
93. The Chairman
 requested Members to submit comments on the Secretariat paper in writing. 
The Secretariat would then prepare a revision to th e document. He proposed that the Committee take 
note of all interventions.   
94. It was so agreed . 
G. OTHER BUSINESS  
95. No matter was raised under "Other Business". 
96. The meeting was adjourned .  
 
 
__________