WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/COMTD/M/81 
16 June 2011  
 
(11-2964) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Eighty-First Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 31 MARCH 2011 
 
Chairman:  H. E. Mr. Erwidodo (Indonesia) 
 
 
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ......................................................................................................... 2  
B.  OBSERVERS  .............................................................................................................................. .... 6 
(i)  Request for attendance of ad hoc observers ............................................................................... 6  
(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 ................................................................................................................. ........... 6 
C. 
NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  ......................................................................... 6  
-  GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL (GCC) NOTIFICATION OF CUSTOMS UNION – 
COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA , EGYPT AND INDIA (WT/COMTD /W/175) .................................... 7  
-  NOTIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN GOODS BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION 
OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN ) AND KOREA  ................................................................ 7  
-  NOTIFICATION OF THE COMPREHENSIV E ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 
BETWEEN INDIA AND KOREA (GOODS ) ........................................................................................ 7  
-  LATIN AMERICAN INTEGRATION ASSOCIATION (LAIA ) – BIENNIAL REPORT TO THE 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION : INFORMATION ON MEASURES TAKEN BY LAIA 
MEMBER COUNTRIES UNDER THE 1980  TREATY OF MONTEVIDEO (FOR THE PERIOD 
1/1/2008-31/12/2009)  (WT/COMTD /72) ..................................................................................... 12  
D.  SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE DUAL NOTIFICATION OF THE 
GULF COOPERATION CUSTOMS UNION – COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA , EGYPT AND 
INDIA (WT/COMTD /W/175) ........................................................................................................ 12  
E.  TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM FOR PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS (WT/L/806)  
– STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN  ............................................................................................. 19  
F.  ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTA TION OF THE HONG KONG DECISION ON DUTY -
FREE AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET ACCESS FOR LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  ........................ 20  
G.  OTHER BUSINESS  ....................................................................................................................... 25  
H.  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SUB -COMMITTEE ON LEAST -DEVELOPED 
COUNTRIES  .............................................................................................................................. .. 26 
I.  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF TH E COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ............. 26  
 
 WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 2  
 
  A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairman said that the draft agenda for the 81st Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (CTD) was contained in docume nt WTO/AIR/3725 circulated on 21 March 2011. 
2. He said that the agenda reflected two written re quests that the Secretariat had received for the 
same communication from China, Egypt and India on "Systemic and specific issues arising out of the 
dual notification of the Gulf Cooperation Council Cust oms Union" to appear on the agenda.  The first 
request, which was reflected in agenda item C, came  from China, Egypt and India themselves.  These 
Members had asked that the agenda items pertaini ng to the notifications of the Gulf Cooperation 
Council (GCC) Customs Union and the other two re gional trade agreements (RTAs) notified under 
both the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV – namely, those between the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Korea, and between India and Korea – be inscribed on the 
agenda of the 81st Session of the CTD, in the same way as th ey were inscribed on the agenda of the 
80th Session of the CTD.  The second request came from the European Union (EU) and the 
United States (US).  These Members had requested  a discussion of the same paper submitted by 
China, Egypt and India on "Systemic and specific issues arising out of the dual notification of the 
Gulf Cooperation Council Customs Union", but under a separate agenda item.  This was accordingly 
reflected on the agenda as item D.  He indicated that  he had held consultations  with the two groups of 
Members in an endeavour to have a single agenda ite m on this issue, but this had not proven possible, 
as these Members had particular concerns. 
3. He added that there were other important issues to be considered at the present meeting.  For 
example, the CTD's annual review of the impl ementation of the Hong Kong Decision on duty-free 
and quota-free (DFQF) market access for least-developed countries (LDCs) appeared on the agenda.  
Under this item, he informed Members that the EU would be making a presentation on the new rules 
of origin in its Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) scheme, copies of which were available in the meeting room.
1  Also on the agenda for the present meeting was the rece nt General Council 
decision to establish a Transparency Mechanism (TM) for Preferential Trade Arrangements (PTAs), 
which he wished to draw Members' attention to.  He also noted that there were items on the agenda 
relating to the appointments of the Chairpersons  of the Sub-Committee on LDCs, and of the CTD. 
4. The representative of Egypt said that he wished to  thank the Chairman for his resolved efforts 
to convene the present, belated, 81st Session of the CTD.  He informed the Committee that his 
delegation had for the past six months participated in several Chair-led informal consultations – at 
both the technical level and the Ambassadorial le vel – that were predom inantly consumed by 
discussions on proposed changes that some Me mbers had requested to the agenda for the 81st Session.  
He observed in this regard that the agenda before the Committee was the fifth in  a series of drafts that 
had been devised for the present meeting. 
5. His delegation was pleased to note that the rules of procedure had been safeguarded, in so far 
as the three RTAs with a dual notification status ha d been retained for consideration by the CTD, and 
had been placed on the agenda under item C, wh ich concerned "Notifications under the Enabling 
Clause".  However, his delegation also noted that the consideration of the GCC Customs Union, as 
well as the communication that had been submitted by China, India and Egypt in this regard, also 
appeared under a separate and new item D on the ag enda.  Accordingly, his delegation sought 
clarification on a number of points.  He firstly inquired as to the purpose of including a new item D on the agenda, which addressed the same issues that we re captured under item C.  He also asked whether 
rule 4 of the CTD's rules of procedures had been applied to include this new item on the agenda, and 
in particular whether a formal request had been communicated in writing to the Secretariat to that 
                                                      
1 Information on the EU's new GSP rules of origin was circulated after the meeting in document 
WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.5.   WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 3 
 
 
  effect.  Additionally, he inquired whether the requ esting Members would be in a position, as was the 
practice, to introduce the communication in docu ment WT/COMTD/W/175 which was referred to in 
item D, notwithstanding the fact that they were not  the authors or co-sponsors of the communication.  
Finally, he asked what were the specific and system ic issues – other than the ones that were being 
discussed under item C in relation to the GCC Agreem ent – that the requesting Members wished to 
raise under item D. 
6. The representative of India said that he wanted  to thank the Chairman for having rightly 
retained the three sub-items relating to RTAs  with a dual notification under agenda item C, 
"Notifications under the Enabling Clause".  He wished to clarify that China, Egypt and India had not requested to inscribe these three sub-items afresh, but rather had requested to retain the sub-items 
from the 80
th Session of the CTD.  Discussions under these sub-items had not been  exhausted, and he 
looked forward to continuing the discussions.  He sai d that his delegation was intrigued to see that 
agenda item D pertained to a submission which had already been listed under item C.  India wished to 
know the details of this agenda item.  In par ticular, he inquired whether the Members that had 
requested the item would be introducing it, and if so, what were the speci fic issues concerning the 
dual notification of the GCC Customs Union that they wanted to discuss. 
7. The representative of China said that his delega tion appreciated the Chairman's tireless efforts 
to reconcile the different positions relating to the CT D's agenda.  He remarked that it was a great pity 
that the last six months had been spent only on th e formulation of the agenda, and that one meeting of 
the CTD could not be held at the end of 2010 for this  reason.  He expressed his delegation's hope that 
this situation, which undermined the functioning of CTD, would not arise again in the future. 
8. He went on to say that China fully supported retaining the sub-items concerning the three 
"dually-notified" RTAs on the agenda of the 81st Session of CTD, since Members had not yet found a 
satisfactory solution to deal with these RTAs.  China looked forward to further discussion on this 
matter.  He recognized that Members had the right to  request that an item be placed on the agenda, if 
the relevant requirements were fulfilled.  However,  China was extremely curious about the rationale 
behind having two separate items for the same proposal .  In this regard, he sought clarification as to 
whether the Members that had requested agenda ite m D had fulfilled the requirement of providing a 
written communication to the Secretariat according to ru le 4 of the rules of procedure for meetings of 
the CTD.  He also inquired how the requesting Members foresaw the discussion under item D.  In particular, he asked whether the Members that had requested item D found this item redundant, given 
that the submission by China, Egypt an d India already appeared under item C. 
9. The representative of the European Union said th at her delegation considered that the first 
three sub-items under agenda item C were a repetition of previous a nnouncements of the notifications 
of the specified RTAs under the En abling Clause.  Having fulfilled the transparency objective, her 
delegation failed to understand the reason why these ag reements were still listed on the agenda of the 
CTD under the item "Notifications under the Enabling Cl ause".  The EU was, therefore, not able to 
engage under the first three sub-items of this agenda  item, and could not join in any possible decision 
to keep them on the agenda of the CTD in the futu re.  She indicated, however, that her delegation was 
ready to have a discussion on the communication on "Systemic and specific issues arising out of the 
dual notification of the Gulf Cooperation C ouncil Customs Union".  The communication was 
circulated on 30 September 2010, and there had not b een enough time to consider it before the last 
CTD meeting on 4 October 2010.  She expressed her de legation's appreciation to the Chairman for his 
efforts to bridge Members' positions on the agenda. 
10. The representative of the United States expressed his delegation's appreciation to the 
Chairman for leading Members in informal cons ultations to resolve the agenda for the present 
meeting.  He indicated that his delegation found it very unfortunate that the December 2010 meeting 
of the CTD had had to be postponed because of continuing differences between Members on the WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 4  
 
  agenda and on the CTD's annual report.  The US recognized the importance of the CTD, as spelled 
out in its terms of reference, to serve as a focal point for consideration and coordination of work on 
development in the WTO.  The US was therefore so rry to see the delay in the CTD's important work, 
which included discussion of next steps with regard  to the TM for PTAs, as well as the annual review 
of the implementation of DFQF market access.  It was also unfortunate that the CTD's annual report 
for 2010 could not be finalized and circulated beca use some Members could not agree to a factual 
representation of the Committee's discussions on notifi cations of RTAs.  His delegation had worked 
diligently in an effort to reso lve the issue, but one section of the report unfortunately remained 
outstanding. 
11. With respect to the agenda for the present meeti ng, the US continued to have concerns with 
agenda item C, and specifically the sub-items addressing the notifications of the GCC Customs 
Union, the ASEAN-Korea Agreement and the Indi a-Korea Agreement.  Despite the substantive 
concerns, the US had demonstrated flexibility in the consultations with the Chairman, in an effort to 
facilitate the formal CTD meeting.  Nevertheless,  his delegation would not engage in discussion under 
the three sub-items.  Each of these sub-items had fulfilled their purpose of informing Members of the 
notifications made, and should be removed from the ag enda.  In line with rule 4 of the rules of 
procedure for the General Council – which were the same for the CTD in terms of the setting of the 
agenda – Members could make a written submissi on together with the accompanying documentation 
for consideration at a CTD meeting.  While China,  Egypt and India had submitted a paper, the paper 
had not, in the past, been independently listed on the agenda in a manner reflecting the title of the 
paper. 
12. He went on to say that the agenda for the present meeting included an agenda item D which 
correctly listed the title of the paper submitted by China, Egypt and India.  The US had recommended 
this correction, and would provide comments on the pa per under agenda item D.  He clarified that the 
US would not be introducing the paper, as the main purpose was to ensure that the paper was correctly 
listed on the agenda.  If some Members call for th e continued listing of the specific sub-items under 
agenda item C for the next CTD meeting, the US wished  to register at this point its objection to that 
course of action.  A better course of  action would be for the Chairman  to continue holding informal 
consultations before setting the agenda for the next CT D meeting.  In closing, he said that he wished 
to be very clear up front that the US had no concern with any developing country notifying a 
qualifying agreement under the Enabling Clause.  His delegation would provide greater detail on this 
point under agenda item D. 
13. The representative of Canada expressed his dele gation's concern that the CTD could not be 
convened at the end of 2010, in light of issues surrounding the agenda for the meeting.  He also 
expressed regret that the CTD could not adopt it s annual report for 2010.  He suggested that 
discussion under the first three sub-items of agenda  item C be suspended until the Negotiating Group 
on Rules (NGR) had concluded its discussion c oncerning RTAs with a dual notification. 
14. The representative of Egypt said that it w as the US that had requested, for the 73rd Session of 
the CTD, the sub-item relating to the GCC Customs Union notification under "Notifications under the 
Enabling Clause".  This request had not come from China, Egypt or India.  He said that it was 
intriguing that the US had requested two agenda items  to discuss the same issue.  He indicated that 
this was a first for his delegation, and that it was hi ghly irregular.  His delegation reserved the right to 
consult with its legal services on the procedure to be followed in this respect.  He continued by saying 
that Egypt did not understand the suggestion that discussions on this matter should continue under a 
different agenda item.  According to the rules of  procedure of the CTD, the three sub-items under 
agenda item C could not be removed until consensu s had been reached on their consideration, and 
only when consultations among all Members in the CTD were exhausted.  He expressed his hope in 
this regard that discussions would be pr operly launched at the present meeting.  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 5 
 
 
  15. The representative of India associated his delegation with the intervention by Egypt.  
Referring to the interventions by the EU and the US , he said that his delegation was confused.  The 
representative of the EU had indicated that th e three sub-items concerning RTAs with a dual 
notification appeared for purposes of transparency , while the US representative had said that they 
appeared for informational purposes.  He noted, how ever, that this had not been the position of these 
delegations in the past.  In particular, for the 73rd Session of the CTD, it was the US that had requested 
the sub-item on the GCC Customs Union notification.  Furthermore, at that meeting, a detailed and 
substantive discussion had taken plac e under this sub-item.  If such a discussion had taken place at 
that time, he did not see why the discussion could not continue now under the same sub-item.  India 
insisted that a substantive discussion on the paper by China, Egypt and India take place under agenda 
item C. 
16. The representative of Japan said that his delegation regretted that the CTD meeting that had 
been scheduled for December 2010 could not take place.   He indicated in this regard that Members 
should find a solution to the issues surrounding the CT D's agenda.  In Japan's view, transparency and 
information-sharing were the purposes of the ag enda item titled "Notifications under the Enabling 
Clause".  The three sub-items under agenda item C concerning RTAs with a dual notification had 
already served their purpose, and should therefore be  removed from the CTD's agenda.  He also made 
a distinction between the sub-item concerning the GCC Customs Union notification and the other two 
sub-items, since only the former concerned a cu stoms union.  He indicated his delegation's 
willingness to have a substantive discussion on th e GCC Customs Union notification under agenda 
item D.  Finally, he said that it was important for Members to note that the dual notification issue was 
being discussed in the NGR. 
17. The representative of China associated his de legation with the interventions by Egypt and 
India. He said that he was not convinced that th e first three sub-items listed under agenda item C had 
fulfilled their purpose, since Members had not reached  consensus on how to proceed with RTAs with 
a dual notification.  In China's view, Member s needed to have a be tter understanding of the 
consideration process for these RTAs before the three sub-items could be removed from the CTD's 
agenda.  It was therefore appropriate to maintain the three sub-items on the agenda, at least for the 
present meeting.  He added that, according to the ru les of procedure, the removal of an item from the 
agenda required the consensus of Members. 
18. The representative of Panama said that, in his vi ew, the rules of procedures of the WTO were 
sufficiently flexible to accommodate  the requests of all delegations to inscribe items on the agenda.  
The discussions that took place in the WTO were of ten broad-ranging, and did not necessarily always 
relate to the title of a particular agenda item.  At no point had a delegation been banned from raising a 
point which it deemed appropriate under an agenda item, regardless of the title  of the agenda item.  
Furthermore, it was not necessary for every Member to  intervene under every agenda item in order for 
an in-depth discussion to take place.  His sugg estion was that the present meeting proceed with 
delegations participating in the discussion under tho se agenda items where they  wished to intervene. 
In this way, the Committee could proceed with its work. 
19. The Chairman said that he had done his best to come up with a compromise solution.  In his 
view, the agenda for the present meeting was a compro mise, as it listed the items that both groups of 
Members had requested in writing.  It was clear, however, that differences remained.  He proposed that the Committee take note of all the statements that had been made. 
20. It was so agreed. 
21. The Chairman said that he wished to raise a matter under "Other Business" concerning the 
CTD's mandate to keep under continuous review the participation of developing country Members in 
the multilateral trading system.  He proposed that the agenda item relating to "Other Business" be WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 6  
 
  considered before the agenda items relating to the elections of the Chairpersons of the Sub-Committee 
on LDCs and of the CTD. 
22. The agenda was adopted as amended. 
B. OBSERVERS  
(i) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers 
23. 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. 
24. 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 
25. 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. 
26. It was so agreed. 
C. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  
27. The Chairman said that he wished to provide Members with an update on the RTAs notified 
under the Enabling Clause that were to be consid ered in the CTD's Dedicated Sessions on RTAs. 
28. He indicated that, since his last update to the Committee in October 2010, developments had 
not been significant.  For one thing, there had b een no new RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause.  
Furthermore, for a number of notified RTAs – in  particular, RTAs between India and MERCOSUR, 
India and Nepal, India and Afghanistan, and India and Bhutan – the full set of data needed to 
complete the factual presentations had not been subm itted by the parties.  This was in spite of the 
Secretariat having requested the data relating to th ese RTAs to be provided by various specified dates 
in 2010, or even in 2009 in one case.  Of these agreements, only data re lating to India-MERCOSUR 
had been provided.  In particular, the Secr etariat had received all the necessary data from 
MERCOSUR, but was still waiting to receive some da ta from India.  If the outstanding data required 
from India were received in good time, it was conceivable that a Dedicated Session of the CTD could 
be held in 2011 to consider the India-MERCOSU R Agreement.  As for the other agreements – 
namely, India-Nepal, India-Afghanistan and India- Bhutan – their consideration by the CTD would 
very much depend on when the necessary data were s ubmitted to the Secretariat.  He urged the parties 
to these agreements to provide the data as soon as possible.  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 7 
 
 
  29. Finally, he recalled that he had mentioned in p ast meetings that there were a number of RTAs 
notified under the Enabling Clause that had not been ratified by all the parties.  Following the procedures of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA), an RTA falling in this category would only be considered by the CTD after it had b een ratified by all the parties.  There were three 
RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause that fell w ithin this category, namely the Pacific Island 
Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), the South- Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) and the 
ASEAN-India Agreement.  He urged the parties to these agreements to inform the Secretariat as soon 
as all ratifications were complete. 
30. Having completed his update, he proposed that  the Committee move to the sub-items listed 
under agenda item C.  He said that he wished to be gin by having the Committee treat the first three 
sub-items together, given that China, Egypt and I ndia had requested all three, and that all three 
concerned RTAs that had been "dually notified" under both the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV. The Committee would then move on to  the fourth sub-item concerning the report on 
the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA). 
- 
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 ) 
31. The Chairman said that he would first give the floor to China, Egypt and India, since it was 
these delegations that had requested that the thr ee sub-items concerning RTAs notified under both the 
Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV be retained  on the CTD's agenda for the present meeting. 
32. The representative of Egypt noted that the Chai rman had indicated that the three sub-items 
under consideration appeared on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of China, Egypt and 
India.  In this regard, he said that he wished to  clarify that the sub-item concerning the GCC Customs 
Union notification had initially appeared on the CTD's agenda at the 73rd Session at the request of the 
US.  The other two sub-items had appeared when th e RTAs to which they related had been notified 
under the Enabling Clause.  The understanding of China,  Egypt and India was that the three sub-items 
did not appear on the CTD's agenda at their request. 
33. He went on to say that the notification of th e GCC Customs Union had been discussed in the 
CTD under the agenda item "Notifications  under the Enabling Clause" since the 73rd Session held in 
March 2009.  This sub-agenda item was introduced at the request of the US to challenge the legality 
of invoking the Enabling Clause in notifying the GCC Customs Union.  Some developed country Members did not favour moving forward with the process of consideration of the GCC Customs 
Union until further clarification was sought on the lega l justification for such a notification.  This 
came despite the assertion made by the former CTD Chairman at the 69
th Session that the GCC 
Customs Union was scheduled for a factual consideration at a Dedicated Session of the CTD in 
October 2008.  However, pursuant consultations held between the challenging developed Members 
and the GCC prompted the latter to make a subse quent notification under Article XXIV of GATT.  
This was deemed by some developed Members to be the legal premise for examining this RTA in the 
CRTA, completely ignoring the fact that there was a legal and valid notification pertaining to this 
RTA made under the Enabling Clause, and that th is RTA was scheduled for consideration in a 
Dedicated Session of the CTD. WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 8  
 
  34. Such undertakings raised several specific a nd systemic concerns to developing countries. 
These undertakings had prompted China, India and Egypt to address some of their concerns in a 
submission which was introduced and presented in detail at the 80
th Session of the CTD held on 
4 October 2010.  The proponents of the submission had argued that several issues needed to be 
discussed and resolved in the CTD before a determ ination could be made on how to consider RTAs 
with a dual notification status.  The ambit of the specific and systemic concerns went well beyond the 
domain of the NGR, which was merely reviewing the TM for RTAs. 
35. He went on to list a number of points which he said were among the main concerns and 
questions that needed to be addressed with respect to the consideration of the GCC Agreement.  He 
firstly inquired whether there was any legal un derstanding to substantiate the views of some 
developed Members that the Enabling Clause did not  provide legal coverage for the GCC Customs 
Union notification or any other custom union.  If this  was the case, he asked for clarification for the 
basis on which Members had approved several othe r customs unions between developing countries 
that had been notified to the CTD under the Enabling Clause.  He cited a number of customs unions in 
this regard, including the Andean Community, the East African Community, the Economic and 
Monetary Community of Central Africa and th e West African Economic and Monetary Union. 
36. He further inquired on the extent to which Members aligned themselves with the Secretariat's 
Legal Note of 2003 which argued that, even if GATT Article XXIV was not explicitly set aside in the 
first paragraph of the Enabling Clause - whereas Article I explicitly was - invoking the Enabling 
Clause would suffice to authorize RTAs among devel oping and least-developed Members, even if the 
requirements of Article XXIV were not completely  satisfied.  If Members did not agree with the 
Secretariat's legal opinion, he wished to know  why some developed Members had based their 
arguments on the Legal Note to justify their proposal s on how to deal with dual notifications in the 
NGR. 
37. He also asked why Members had not challe nged the legality of the Unified Economic 
Agreement that established the GCC Customs Union,  which was notified in 1984 exclusively on the 
basis of the Enabling Clause.  He pointed out that Members had agreed at the time to consider that 
Agreement in the CTD within th e realm of preferential arrangeme nts among developing countries.  
He additionally indicated that if the Agreemen t establishing the GCC Customs Union was already 
notified under the Enabling Clause in 1984, it seem ed that the 1995 General Council decision on 
avoidance of procedural and institutional duplication needed be applied in th is case.  Furthermore, 
pointing to the 2007 and 2009 notifications of the GCC Agreement as subsequent notifications 
regarding implementation procedures, he suggested that these notifications should be treated as such 
in the context of the RTAs TM. 
38. He additionally referred to the procedures on re porting on RTAs adopted by the CTD in 1998.  
According to these procedures, any information s ubsequent to an initial notification made under 
paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause regarding the modification of the preferential arrangements 
between developing countries was to be notified under paragraph 4(a) of the Enabling Clause.  In this 
light, he inquired on the extent to which Members had adhered to these procedures in the case of the 
GCC Customs Union.  He also asked whether it would be legal to obtain accession commitments in violation of existing WTO provisions.  It appeared  that one member country of the GCC had in 2007 
notified the implementation procedures for the G CC Customs Union under the Enabling Clause and 
subsequently in 2009 had notified the same impl ementation procedures on the basis of Article XXIV 
of GATT.  Furthermore, in 1984 another GCC member country had notified the GCC Economic 
Agreement, which established the customs union itself,  under the Enabling Clause.  On this basis, he 
asked how such unilateral actions would affect the ri ghts and obligations of Members.  In addition, he 
inquired on the legal implications of having an  agreement establishing a customs union notified under 
the Enabling Clause, while another notification re garding an amendment to that agreement was 
notified under both GATT Article XXIV and the Enabling Clause.  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 9 
 
 
  39. He continued with his list of issues by inquiring on the extent to which Member's accession 
commitments to notify an RTA on the basis of GAT T Article XXIV had precedence over, or denied 
the other Members party to the same RTA, the ri ght to notify the Agreement to the CTD under the 
Enabling Clause.  He additionally queried whether the CTD had fulfilled its mandate in considering 
the GCC Agreement, in so far as the Committee's terms of reference required it to consider any 
questions which may arise with regard to either th e application or the use of special provisions in 
favour of developing country Members, including th e invocation of the Enabling Clause.  He also 
shared his concern as to whether the CTD had repor ted the impasse on the interpretation and scope of 
the Enabling Clause, as well as ot her specific and systemic issues arising from the GCC dual 
notification, to the General Council for appropriate action, as per rule 33 of the Committee's rules of 
procedure. 
40. He next queried whether Member s had agreed to set a practice whereby notifications of RTAs 
among developing countries were to be contested at first sight or on a prima facie  basis, without 
having any factual report prepared by the Secretariat to  substantiate such challenges.  In this light, he 
asked whether Members would be in  a position to accept a similar practice in the case of RTAs that 
were notified to the CRTA under GATT Article XXIV, given that both the CRTA and the CTD 
followed the same reporting procedures on RTAs, and despite the fact that such actions were not 
prescribed by the RTAs TM.  Moreover, he wished to know whether Members were now in a position 
to revert to the practice of making legal judgmen ts on the compatibility or conformity of RTAs 
notified to the WTO under GATT Article XXIV.  He ob served that this would prove to be interesting 
since, according to the Secretariat, the only RTA no tified on the basis of Article XXIV that was ever 
deemed to be fully WTO-compatible was the Czec h-Slovak Customs Union.  This suggested that 
neither the North American Free Trade Agreement nor  the Treaty of Rome establishing the European 
Economic Community had ever been decreed as bein g compatible with Article XXIV, given that the 
commissioned working party could not, upon scrutiny, reconcile the legal issues. 
41. He additionally asked whether Members would s ubscribe to the view that the Enabling Clause 
was neither a waiver nor an exception to the MF N obligation, but rather  constituted a self-standing 
and designated regime.  Furthermore, if Members ha d the right to challenge the legality of an RTA 
that had been notified under the Enabling Clause, he  questioned the extent to which Members in doing 
so were respecting their previous ad referendum  commitment - as prescribed in Annex C of the draft 
Cancun Ministerial declaration - to guarantee that  the Enabling Clause would apply whenever action 
was taken by developing Members under the provisions of this Clause.  He also queried whether RTA 
transparency obligations were distinct from any ac tion that affected Members might wish to take in 
other WTO bodies.  If not, he asked how Members qualified and interpreted the provisions in the 
RTAs TM which stated that RTA factual presentati ons and the consideration of RTAs should not be 
used as a basis for dispute settlement procedures. 
42. He continued with the following points.  He firstly inquired how Members interpreted the 
obligation not to prejudge the substance of a requi red RTA notification and not to affect Members' 
rights and obligations under the WTO agreements in any way, as was specified in the RTAs TM.  He 
pointed to Section C of the RTAs TM in particul ar, which stated that upon notification and without 
prejudging the substance under which an RTA had been  notified, that RTA would be considered by 
Members on the basis of a factual presentation.  Fu rthermore, he asked what was of most importance 
for the RTA transparency exercise, in particular whether it was the ve nue of consideration or rather 
the relevant applicable WTO law that had been inv oked to justify the creation of the RTA.  It seemed 
from the reaction of some developed Members in th eir consideration of the GCC Customs Union, and 
from a number of panel and appellate body rulings - including the Turkey-Textiles  case and the 
EC-Bananas  dispute - that the applicable WTO legal provision was the core issue here. 
43. Finally, he raised the question of whether the CRTA could review any notification 
automatically and unilaterally.  In this regard, he said that, according to the CRTA's terms of WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 10  
 
  reference, it could not do so.  In particular, the CRTA could only carry out an examination of 
agreements in accordance with the procedures and terms of reference adopted by the Council for 
Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in Services or the CTD, as the case may be, and thereafter 
report to the relevant body for a ppropriate action. Moreover, there were no prescribed provisions in 
the RTAs TM that would allow the CRTA to proceed  with the examination of an RTA that had been 
notified twice, each time invoking a distinct WTO legal provision. 
44. He went on to say that these were some of the specific and systemic issu es that needed to be 
addressed in considering the GCC Customs Union.  He  emphasized that, according to the Secretariat's 
Legal Note of 2003, any review of the RTA – wher ever it occurred – must be performed according to 
the legal provision that had been invoked to justif y the WTO consistency of the RTA in question.  The 
Note went on to ascertain that any review of an RTA notified under the Enabling Clause must be 
carried out in accordance with the terms of refe rence of the CTD, and that the CTD had overall 
responsibility for the operation of the Enabling Cl ause.  The legal obligations arising from the 
application of the Enabling Clause were very  much different from those prescribed by GATT 
Article XXIV, and this was why hi s delegation had called for prudence in addressing the specific and 
systemic issues at hand. Merely addressing the issue of "venue for consideration" was clearly a legal 
and procedural understatement. 
45. He said that he wished to conclude by quoting the Appellate Body's ruling in the EC–Tariff 
Preferences  case, which ascertained that the Enabling Clau se had become an integral part of the 
GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body also noted that the relationship between trade and development, 
and in particular the role of th e Enabling Clause, remained prominen t on the agenda of the WTO.  The 
Enabling Clause, by its own terms, sought to promot e the fuller participation of developing countries 
in the world trading system.  The EU even argue d that the Enabling Clause was the most concrete, 
comprehensive and important application of the pr inciple of special and differential treatment, and 
that it was the most basic principle of the in ternational law of deve lopment and constituted 
lex specialis  that applied to the exclusion of more general WTO rules. 
46. It was, therefore, arguable that customs uni ons among developing countries should continue 
to be notified on the basis of the Enabling Clause.   The object and purpose of the Enabling Clause 
clearly distinguished it from other exceptions such  as those found in Articles XXIV, XX and XXI of 
the GATT 1994, allowing developed and least deve loped Members to adopt and pursue legitimate 
policy objectives.  For these reasons, Egypt requested  that the dual notification of the GCC Customs 
Union be retained on the agenda for the considera tion of the CTD on the basis of the Enabling Clause, 
and in light of the aforementioned specific and systemic  issues that had been raised in its connection.  
He indicated that a discussion on these issues had not yet properly begun. 
47. The representative of India associated his de legation with the intervention by Egypt.  He 
recalled that the sub-item concerning the GCC Cust oms Union notification was introduced by the US 
delegation at the CTD's 73rd Session in March 2009.  Issues of concern to the US with regard to the 
notification of the GCC Customs Union under the En abling Clause were raised in that meeting in 
quite some detail.  Since then, discussions had cont inued under the same sub-item.  Furthermore, in 
response to a specific request from some Members, the delegations of China, Egypt and India had 
made a submission on "Systemic and specific issues arising out of the dual notification of the GCC 
Customs Union".  The representative of Egypt had el aborated on several of the points raised in the 
submission.  He expressed his hope that Members could have a detailed discussion on these issues of 
immense systemic and specific inter est and concern to his delegation. 
48. The representative of China associated his de legation with the interventions by Egypt and 
India.  He said that the sub-item concerning the no tification of the GCC Customs Union had appeared 
on the CTD's agenda for nine consecutive meetings  over the previous two years.  Members would, 
therefore, be quite familiar with the history and e volution of the issue, including which delegation had  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 11 
 
 
  brought the issue to the CTD and had subsequently  insisted on dropping the sub-item from the agenda 
when its demands had been met. 
49. He went on to say that, in China's view, this was not simply a procedural issue dealing with 
the venue of consideration.  More seriously, it rela ted to the legal rights and obligations of Members 
under the WTO Agreements.  He explained that the venue of consideration w ould determine the legal 
basis for the review, as well as the threshold for measuring the reviewed RTA's conformity with WTO 
rules.  The consequences of a review in the various  Committees were also different.  Bearing this in 
mind, Members should not look at the surface of th e issue, but needed to consider its profound 
implications in a systemic and substantive way.  As his delegation had repeatedly stated, the proper 
solution needed to consist of a number of elements .  These included firstly the need for the rights of 
developing Members under the Enabling Clause to be  respected, especially the right to invoke 
Article 2(c) to foster sound relationships a nd improve trade liberali zation among developing 
Members.  Second, there was a n eed to maintain and strengthen th e central role of the CTD in 
development-related issues.  Any issue relating to the application of the Enabling Clause was certainly 
within the competence of the CTD. 
50. He said that China - together with India, Egypt and other Members - had seriously engaged in 
the discussion with an open and constructive mi nd. China, Egypt and India had made a joint 
submission to illustrate the specific and systemic c oncerns arising out of the dual notification of the 
GCC Customs Union in order to enhance Members' understanding.  These thre e delegations had also 
actively participated in the informal consulta tions on the draft CTD and CRTA reports to the 
General Council, and had consistently shown flexibility throug h the process.  Although the best 
efforts of these delegations had not led to a sa tisfactory solution, they remained committed to 
continuing their efforts.  He urged other Members to proceed in the same spirit. 
51. He observed that, on previous occasions, some Members had suggested that the issue of dual 
notification should be addressed in the NGR.  While his delegation did not have fundamental 
objections to this, it believed that the concer ns illustrated in the communication under discussion 
could not be fully resolved in the NGR.  He cited as an example the question of whether the Enabling 
Clause could provide the legal justification for th e formation of a customs union that involved the 
elimination or reduction of non-tariff measures.  A nother example he provided related to the question 
of whether a Member's accession commitment to notify an RTA to the CRTA under GATT Article XXIV would have precedence over other Members' rights to notify the same RTA to the CTD under the Enabling Clause.  The CTD had the respons ibility to discuss these issues with an aim to 
finding a proper solution. 
52. Furthermore, as Members were aware, the NGR was currently conducting the review of the 
RTAs TM, in the context of which the dual notif ication issue was being discussed.  On this, he 
observed that sharp differences remained among Me mbers, and not much progress had been achieved 
thus far.  China was particularly concerned about the recent US proposal that all RTAs, irrespective of 
their legal basis, would be reviewed in the CRTA si mply because this body, in the view of the US, 
was a more efficient and effective body to conduct such  work.  He said that his delegation was of the 
view that the US proposal would not only impa ir developing Members' rights under the Enabling 
Clause, but would also undermine the mandate and term s of reference of the CTD.  In addition, China 
was especially not convinced that the CRTA was more  efficient and effective, given that it was the 
same team in the Secretariat that was undertaki ng work relating to RTAs in both the CTD and the 
CRTA. 
53. Finally, he noted that India had tabled a valu able proposal to retain the current practice of 
considering RTAs notified under GATT Article  XXIV in the CRTA, and those notified under 
Enabling Clause in the CTD, while additionally entrus ting to the latter the review of "dually notified" 
RTAs.  China considered that this proposal, which did not fundamentally overturn the basic structure WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 12  
 
  of the RTAs TM, fully respected the mandate of th e CTD.  The proposal was also in line with the 
principle of lex specialis  of the Enabling Clause over GATT Article XXIV.  His delegation looked 
forward to further discussion on this option in a nother format, which could also facilitate discussion 
and a decision in the CTD. 
54. The Committee took note of all interventions. 
- LATIN AMERICAN INTEGRATION ASSOCIATION (LAIA ) – BIENNIAL REPORT TO THE 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION : INFORMATION ON MEASURES TAKEN BY LAIA 
MEMBER COUNTRIES UNDER THE 1980  TREATY OF MONTEVIDEO (FOR THE PERIOD 
1/1/2008-31/12/2009)  (WT/COMTD /72) 
55. The Chairman said that the present sub-item concerned a biennial report to the WTO, 
circulated in document WT/COMTD/72, providing information on measures taken by LAIA member 
countries in the period 1 January 2008 to 31 D ecember 2009.  He inquired whether any member 
country of the LAIA wished to take the floor to introduce the report. 
56. The representative of Uruguay said that, in its capacity as the headquarter State of the LAIA, 
Uruguay had submitted on 20 October 2010 the biennial report in order to inform the CTD of the 
measures taken under the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo by  the LAIA member countries that were also 
WTO Members, during the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2009.  Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) 
of the Enabling Clause, the report was composed of three chapters.  The first chapter provided a brief 
summary of the integration process within the LA IA framework over the reporting period for the 
purpose of establishing a free trade area, as agreed in Resolution 59 of the XIIIth Council of Ministers 
in 2004.  Accordingly, it explained the broad outlin es of the preparation and content of the new work 
programme approved by the Association's deci sion-making bodies, which covered not only aspects 
related to trade in goods, but also issues such as th e social dimension of integration, trade in services, 
integration of production, trade promotion and fac ilitation.  The second chapter of the report listed the 
Agreements or Additional Protocols adopted by LAIA member countries under the 1980 Treaty of 
Montevideo during the reporting period.  The third chapter described trends  in member countries' 
intraregional trade and trade with the rest of the world over the reporting period and also set out some 
conclusions. 
57. The Committee took note of the report. 
D. SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC ISSUES ARISING OU T OF THE DUAL NOTIFICATION OF THE GULF 
COOPERATION CUSTOMS UNION – COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA , EGYPT AND INDIA 
(WT/COMTD /W/175) 
58. The Chairman said that he would first give the floor to the EU and the US, since it was these 
delegations that had requested the present agenda item. 
59. The representative of the United States said that he wished to thank the Chairman for having 
correctly reflected the communication from China,  Egypt and India under the present item.  He 
indicated that the GCC Customs Union had been  incorrectly notified as an Enabling Clause 
agreement.  This was subsequently corrected, and the GCC Customs Union was in the pipeline to be 
reviewed in the CRTA, in line with the procedur es of the TM for RTAs.  Some delegations had 
observed that the sub-item concerning the GCC Cust oms Union notification had been requested for 
the 73rd Session of the CTD by the US.  He recalled, however, that during the 76th Session of the 
CTD, the GCC Customs Union notification under GA TT Article XXIV was discussed and referred to 
the CRTA for review.  As no Member objected, th e documentation for reviewing this customs union 
in the CRTA was being prepared.  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 13 
 
 
  60. Some Members had raised an interest in discussing the systemic issue of dual notifications at 
the 76th Session, and to keep the issue on the agenda for that purpose, but not for further discussion of 
the GCC Customs Union.  He referred to the minutes of that meeting – contained in document WT/COMTD/M/76 – and in particular paragraph 21, which contained the following text:  "The 
Chairman said that, as he saw it, the concerns raised  related to the fact that the notification under the 
Enabling Clause remained.  He had not, however, he ard any delegation object to the choice made by 
the GCC countries to notify their agreement under GA TT Article XXIV and have it considered in the 
CRTA.  According to the process th at he had outlined in his earlier intervention, the CTD would then 
be informed of the outcome of this consideration.  In that sense, the matter would in any case not be 
completely removed from the CTD's horizon."  The US considered this issue closed, and had 
requested that it be removed from the CTD's agenda.  He also thanked the Chairman for clarifying in 
his opening remarks at the present meeting as to whic h delegations had requested the three sub-items 
under agenda item C. 
61. He went on to say that, given the incorrect notification of the GCC Customs Union as an 
Enabling Clause agreement, his delegation did not consider the GCC Customs Union notification to 
be a "dual notification".  The US wanted to be very clear that it had no quarrel with any developing 
country notifying a qualifying agreement under the Enabling Clause.  That was not what the GCC Customs Union notification issue was about.  This  notification concerned a customs union, which 
made it different from non-customs union RTA notif ications.  Unless and until Members prescribed 
criteria for the elimination of non-tariff measure s (NTMs) under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling 
Clause, GATT Article XXIV provided the only av enue for notifying and examining any customs 
union.  The notification and examination of cu stoms unions were specifically provided for in 
Article XXIV.  Given that the Enabling Clause did not address customs unions, the notification of the GCC Customs Union as an Enabling Clause agreement was incorrect.  The only valid notification of 
the GCC Customs Union was the notification under Article XXIV.   Theref ore, the GCC Customs 
Union was not a case of a dual notification. 
62. He added, more generally, that any Member engaged in a customs union that was exceeding 
its WTO binding in applying the common external tariff of the customs union might need to rely on the provisions of Article XXIV:6, which provi ded the ability to seek an exception from GATT 
Article II.  The Enabling Clause only provided an exception from GATT Article I.  He noted, based 
on information obtained from the RTAs database, th at other developing country Members such as the 
parties to the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), 
had notified their customs unions under GATT Article  XXIV, while notifying other agreements under 
the Enabling Clause.  There was no inherent contra diction in undertaking two different kinds of 
arrangements, and notifying them accordingly.  Furt hermore, the parties' corrected notification of the 
GCC Custom Union and the subsequent review of  the agreement in the CRTA in no way impinged 
upon the terms of reference of the CTD.  He added that the RTAs TM set out the WTO rules for the 
review of RTAs.  He in particular referred to paragraph 18 of the RTAs TM, which instructed the 
CRTA and the CTD to implement the Mechanism.  The CRTA was to do so for RTAs falling under 
Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS,  while the CTD was to do so for RTAs falling 
under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause.  Fo r purposes of performing the functions established 
under this Mechanism, the CTD was to convene in Dedicated Session. 
63. Referring to his remarks under agenda item A, he reiterated his delegation's recognition of the 
CTD's mandate to serve as a focal point for cons ideration and coordination of work on development 
in the WTO.  The US also recognized  that the CTD could, within its terms of reference, consider any 
questions that may arise from either the applicati on or the use of special provisions in the multilateral 
trade agreements and related Ministerial decisions  in favour of developing country Members.  
However, just because an issue might involve devel oping countries, this did not mean that the issue 
must be taken up in the CTD, particularly when the RTAs TM clearly set out that the CRTA was 
responsible for reviewing Article XXIV agreements.  The CTD simply did not have the capacity or WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 14  
 
  technical expertise to address every WTO issue invo lving a developing country, and it would not be 
practical to examine issues assigned to another WTO body in the CTD.  This was true whether it was 
the CRTA reviewing Article XXIV notifications, or the NGR reviewing the RTAs TM.  The WTO had specific technical bodies for a reason, and all Me mbers represented in the CTD also participated 
in these technical bodies.  He added that the partie s to the GCC Customs Union, as well as the CTD, 
had already agreed to have the review of this ag reement take place in the CRTA, in line with RTAs 
TM procedures. 
64. He next turned to the paper by China, Egypt a nd India.  He said that, in reviewing the paper, 
his delegation had not seen any specific issues relate d to the GCC Customs Union notification.  The 
paper appeared to be seeking a systemic discussion of RTAs, particularly with regard to the issue of 
dual notifications.  As his delega tion had clarified, the GCC Customs Union notification was not a 
dual notification, given that the Enabling Clause no tification was not valid.  However, if the paper 
was viewed as a systemic discussion of dual notificati ons more generally, the US noted that it largely 
overlapped with the discussion currently taking place in the NGR – a discussion that China, Egypt and 
India had been actively engaged in.  Given that the issue of dual notifications was directly linked to 
the functioning of the RTAs TM, the US believed that the NGR was the appropriate forum for the 
discussion, and requested that the issue be removed from the CTD's agenda for the next meeting.  As 
had been already explained, the US did not see the NGR's work on the RTAs TM in any way 
impinging upon the terms of reference of the CTD. 
65. He said that he wished to turn briefly to the notifications of the ASEAN-Korea Agreement 
and the India-Korea Agreement, in order to clar ify that the US saw the notifications of these 
agreements as being very different from the GC C Customs Union notification.  These agreements 
were not customs unions, and had already been listed on the CTD's agenda in 2010, informing 
Members of their upcoming review under the RTAs  TM.  His delegation requested that these 
sub-items be removed from the agenda, as they had fu lfilled their purpose.  The US believed that the 
Members requesting that the ASEAN-Korea Agreem ent and the India-Korea Agreement remain on 
the CTD's agenda had made this request for the pur pose of discussing dual notif ications.  Paragraph 3 
of the paper by China, Egypt and India noted that these delegations' systemic concerns were due to a 
dual notification taking place under the RTAs TM.  Ag ain, as the issue of dual notifications was 
directly tied to the functioning of the RTAs TM, and as the NGR was overseeing the review of the 
RTAs TM, his delegation saw the NGR as being the mo st appropriate forum for the discussion of dual 
notifications to take place. 
66. The representative of the European Union sai d that the communication from China, Egypt 
and India was submitted on 30 Septem ber 2010, and that there had not been enough time to consider it 
before the last CTD meeting held on 4 October 2010.   The present meeting, therefore, provided an 
opportunity to review the arguments made in the co mmunication.  In the view of her delegation, the 
communication addressed an important systemic issue,  which was the fact that some RTAs had been 
notified under two legal provisions, namely the En abling Clause and GATT Article XXIV.  This was 
an issue of outstanding systemic importance, and this was why it was being discussed in the 
framework of the Doha Round of negotiations, as part of the review of the RTAs TM.  The current discussions in the NGR should clarify the procedur es by which an agreement that had been notified 
twice should follow, notably by ensuring that the transparency of the affected agreement was not 
hampered.  In this light, she suggested that Me mbers not discuss this issue until a solution was found 
in the NGR.  She noted that the CRTA respected this way of proceeding. 
67. She went on to say that her delegation w as open to any systemic discussion on the 
clarification of rules governing the creation of RTAs, including the scope of the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV.  This type of systemic discu ssion on RTAs pertained to the NGR.  While the 
communication from China, Egypt and India highlighted a number of systemic issues, her delegation 
had failed to identify any specific issue related to  the GCC in the communica tion.  Given that the  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 15 
 
 
  communication pertained to systemic issues relati ng to RTAs, the EU suggested that it should be 
submitted to the NGR for proper consideration.  She added that the systemic debate had been 
portrayed by some as attempts by developed Memb ers to deny developing Members their right to 
notify under the Enabling Clause agreements that qua lified under this provision.  She wished to once 
again assure Members that this was not the case.  The EU had one overriding systemic objective, 
which was to assure full transparency  in the agreements notified, so that the membership could learn 
about them in a timely manner.  She observed in conclusion that, after a number of years of discussion on the GCC Customs Union, Members were not really on track to meet this objective. 
68. The representative of Lesotho said that he wished to clarify that SACU related to a region, 
and not to an individual country.  This was in light  of references he had heard to a "South African 
Customs Union". 
69. The representative of Egypt said that he had not intended to take the floor under this agenda 
item, as his delegation's position had been clearly e xpressed earlier in the meeting.  However, for the 
sake of demonstrating some flexibility, he said that  he would make remarks on the interventions that 
had been made by the US and the EU.  Before doing so, however, he asked for clarification as to 
whether the notification of the GCC Customs Union under the Enabling Clause had been withdrawn.  
If this was the case, he said that Members should not be discussing issues relating to the notification 
of this agreement at all. 
70. The Chairman said that his understanding was that the GCC re-notified its customs union 
under Article XXIV, but that the notification under the Enabling Clause had not been withdrawn. 
71. The representative of Egypt said that, on the basis of the clarification provided by the 
Chairman, there remained a notification under th e Enabling Clause which had not been withdrawn. 
He was therefore astonished that the US had stat ed that there was no valid notification under the 
Enabling Clause.  He cautioned against any Member  judging whether a notification made by one or 
more other Members was incorrect.  While there were no GCC countries present in the meeting room, he believed that these countries would not appreciate this. 
72. He went on to say that he wished to respond to  a number of factually baseless points that had 
been made.  He recalled firstly that the US had st ated that the only valid notification of the GCC 
Customs Union was the one under GATT Article XXIV .  Since the Chairman had already clarified 
that the notification under the Enabling Clause had not been withdrawn, the point made by the US 
was factually incorrect.  The US had also stated th at the Enabling Clause di d not deal with customs 
unions.  On this, he said that he advised the US dele gation to refer to the notes that it had presented in 
the context of the EC-Tariff Preferences  case.  Here, the US had emphasized that several aspects of 
the Enabling Clause were unrelated to Article I of the GATT, and that the Enabling Clause was 
incorporated into GATT 1994.  The US had also indi cated that it viewed th at the Enabling Clause 
went further than the general exceptions prescribed  in Article XX, XXI and XXIV of GATT 1994.  If 
this was the case, he inquired why this s houldn't apply to the GCC Customs Union. 
73. He said that the US had also indicated that the TM for RTAs should be invoked and that its 
procedures should be respected to consider the GCC Cu stoms Union.  On this, he said that he advised 
the US delegation to look at Section E of the M echanism, which stated that the CRTA and the CTD 
were instructed to implement the Transparency  Mechanism.  The CRTA would do so for RTAs 
falling under Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS, while the CTD would do so for 
RTAs falling under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause.  For purposes of performing the functions 
established under this Mechanism, th e CTD was to convene in dedicated  session.  In view of what 
was stated in the RTAs TMs, he said that it was clear that the Mechanism did not specify how RTAs 
with a dual notification were to be considered.  He also expressed his disagreement with the US' 
observation that the CTD did not have the capacity to examine all development issues and added that WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 16  
 
  he was surprised that no other delegation had objected to this.  To clarify, he said that he followed 
meetings of both the CRTA and the CTD.  In additio n, as China had indicated earlier, it was the same 
unit in the Secretariat that prepared the factual pr esentations on RTAs, regardle ss of the body in which 
the RTAs were to be considered.  In light of this, the US was requested to explain what it meant by its 
comment on the capacity of the CTD. 
74. He recalled that both the EU and the US had stated that they had not found any specific issues 
relating to the GCC Customs Union in the paper by Ch ina, Egypt and India.  In this regard, he said 
that the EU and the US needed only to do a word co unt of the number times references were made to 
this agreement, both in the paper itself, as well as in the interventions made in the CTD by the 
proponents.  He could not understand why the EU a nd the US were not recognizing this.  The EU had 
additionally indicated that systemic issues were be ing dealt with by the NGR.  In response, he 
indicated that the NGR had stopped discussing system ic issues a long time ago.  Furthermore, 
proposals were being made by some developed Members to not discuss systemic issues at all at this point in time, but rather to put these issues into a post-Doha Work Programme.  His delegation could 
not accept the idea that systemic issues only be di scussed as part of a post-Doha Work Programme. 
75. He said that another point made by the EU was that China, Egypt and India should make a 
submission to the NGR on their proposals.  In th is regard, he recalled that the NGR Chair had 
requested the Chairs of the CTD and the CRTA to provide reports on any problems faced in the implementation of the RTAs TM.  Both the reports had indicated that there was a problem with dual 
notifications.  Furthermore, since mention had b een made of the submission by China, Egypt and 
India, he did not see why these delegations needed to re-submit the paper in the NGR, since the NGR 
Chair had already been made aware of the submission .  In concluding, he requested the Chairman to 
remove the present item from the CTD's agenda, as the issues were already being considered under 
agenda item C.  He also reiterated that the CTD ha d the responsibility to discuss all issues pertinent to 
the application of the Enabling Clause as well as any other development issues.  In the view of his 
delegation, the CTD was certainly capable of doing so , even if some Members might think otherwise. 
76. The representative of India said that his delega tion maintained its pos ition that substantive 
discussion on this issue had been completed at the present meeting under agenda item C, which was 
the most appropriate place to have such a di scussion.  When the sub-item concerning the GCC 
Customs Union notification was first introduced at the 73rd Session, much discussion had taken place.  
Several documents concerning the s ub-item had been listed on the age nda for that meeting and several 
delegations took the floor. It was clear, therefore,  that substantive discussion could take place under 
that sub-item.  India could not agree to the double standards that suggested that when a particular 
delegation requested an item, substantive discussion could take place, but if some other delegations 
requested to maintain the item, it became an item only for purposes of transparency and information 
sharing. India fully associated itself with the co mments made by Egypt.  Furthermore, India was of 
the view that no decision had been taken regarding the consideration of the GCC Customs Union.  He 
added that this was, in fact, one of the specific issues regarding the GCC Customs Union that was still 
pending. While some possibilities were discussed at the 76th Session, no decision had been taken.  
This was acknowledged by the CTD Chairman in th e course of several informal discussions. India 
requested a formal statement by the CTD Chairm an to this effect at the present meeting. 
77. He went on to say that he was surprised to hear that Japan differentiated between the GCC 
Customs Union notification and the other two dual notif ications.  The US had further stated that the 
GCC Customs Union did not have a dual notification at all.  In this regard, he said that if the goods 
component of an RTA was notified under two provi sions, it was a dual notification in his view. 
Furthermore, it had been clarified in the case of the GCC Customs Union that the notification under 
the Enabling Clause had not been withdrawn.  Ther efore, the GCC Customs Union was an RTA with 
a dual notification. India also disagreed with the US' view that the Enabling Clause did not provide a 
legal basis for the notification of customs unions.  In the course of discussions in the CTD in 2009,  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 17 
 
 
  some Members had requested the Secretariat to prep are a list of customs unions that had been notified 
under the Enabling Clause.  The Secretariat's list, prepared in July 2009, contained six customs unions. There were the Andean Community, MERC OSUR, the Economic and Monetary Community 
of Central Africa, the West African Economic and Monetary Union, the East African Community and 
the Economic Community of West African States.  The GCC Customs Union was not, therefore, the 
first customs union to be notified under the Enablin g Clause.  Furthermore, his delegation had not 
found any legal challenge being made to any of th e previous customs unions that were notified under 
the Enabling Clause. 
78. He added that, while the issue of dual notifi cations was being discussed in the NGR, there 
was extreme reluctance on the part of some Member s to even engage in a discussion on systemic 
issues.  This had already been pointed out by Egypt.   Some developing countries were trying their best 
to start a discussion on systemic issues, but they had not found any construc tive engagement.  On the 
review of the RTAs TM, the US had made a submission proposing that, irrespective of the 
notification provisions, all RTAs – including those w ith a dual notification – be considered in the 
CRTA.  In India's view, such a consideration woul d undermine not only the Enabling Clause, but also 
the terms of reference of the CTD, which had a clear mandate to discuss developmental issues, and 
also had a mandate to review RTAs.  He agreed with China that the issues relating to the GCC 
notification were very profound.  Members had to bear in mind that provisions such as the Enabling Clause were an integral part of the WTO acquis .  India noted a concerted effort to dilute and 
undermine the Enabling Clause, not only in deliberati ons in the CTD, but also in the CRTA, the NGR 
and other WTO bodies.  The efforts to chip away at the Enabling Clause were not new.  In the context 
of notifications of RTAs, it dated back to at least  2002, when the notificatio n of the India-Sri Lanka 
Agreement under the Enabling Clause was put into questi on by the US.  This was in spite of the fact 
that both India and Sri Lanka were developing co untries and had a prerogative to notify their RTA 
under the Enabling Clause. 
79. The GCC issue was merely symptomatic of the obstacles being placed in the way of 
discussions on issues of importance to developing and least-developed Members.  The reference to the 
GCC in the title of the present agenda item was inci dental. Reference could just have well have been 
made to the India-Sri Lanka Agreement, th e India-Korea Agreement or the ASEAN-Korea 
Agreement.  What lay beneath the surface were th e persistent and longsta nding attempts of some 
developed country Members to undermine the flexib ility available to developing countries under the 
Enabling Clause.  In 2008, there were protracted  discussions in the CTD on how some developed 
Members were opposing the prerogative of the developing Members of the GCC Customs Union to 
notify their RTA under the Enabling Clause.  Prej udging the consideration process under the RTAs 
TM, accusations were made regarding tariff bindings and NTMs. Similar points were repeated by the US at the present meeting.  He questioned how dele gations could make such allegations even before 
the consideration of an RTA took place. 
80. He also recalled that consensu s had been blocked some mont hs ago on the annual report of 
the CTD for 2010.  As a result, Members were de nied an opportunity to discuss in the General 
Council extremely important issues such as the ac cession of LDCs, the status of the Fourth UN 
Conference on LDCs scheduled for May 2011, progress on the Hong Kong Decision on DFQF market access for LDCs, progress on Aid for Trade and work related to small and vulnerable economies.  It was not coincidental that such efforts to unde rmine the Enabling Clause included a particular 
developed-country Member which consistently  refused to fulfil the obligation regarding 
implementation of DFQF market access for LDCs.  He concluded by noting that the issue under 
discussion had such profound implications that it had to be discussed not only at the present meeting, 
but also in successive meetings. 
81. The representative of the United States thanked Egypt and India for their comments.  He 
believed that these formed part of the substantive discussion that Members should be having on this WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 18  
 
  matter. While he had attempted to note down all the questions that had been raised – which he would 
presently respond to – he invite d delegations to inform him if he had missed anything. 
82. He clarified firstly his reference to an incorrect notification of the GCC Customs Union under 
the Enabling Clause.  He explained that it had not been his intention to pass judgement on the GCC countries.  The US was merely pointing to its un derstanding that the elimination of NTMs was not 
covered under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause.  This was also why the GCC Customs Union 
had been subsequently re-notified under GATT Article  XXIV, and was to be considered in the CRTA.  
On the question regarding whether customs unions were covered under the Enabling Clause, he noted 
that this was not a systemic issue, since there were no provisions in the Enabling Clause covering 
agreements beyond trade in goods.  Furthermore, there were no criteria or conditions established for 
agreements covering the mutual reduction or elim ination of NTMs.  Unless and until Members had 
prescribed such criteria with respect to paragr aph 2(c), Article XXIV provided the avenue for 
notification. 
83. He moved on to the question relating to the CTD's capacity.  In this regard, he hoped that the 
majority of Members understood that his observa tions were not meant to pass a judgement on the 
CTD itself.  Rather, he had meant to point out th at the WTO had technical bodies for a good reason, 
as these bodies were able to address technical issues.  On the issue of dual notifications, he said that 
the US agreed that the RTAs TM did not provide procedures to address dual notifications.  As such, 
the issue was currently being discu ssed in the NGR, which had the mandate to address issues relating 
to the RTAs TM.  He added that the phrase "dual notification" was not WTO terminology, and he was 
not aware of a legal understanding on whether th is meant the notification of an RTA under two 
different legal provisions, or two di fferent legal provisions that were accurate.  With regard to the 
CTD's annual report, he said that the US stood rea dy to agree to any factual representation of what 
took place in the Committee in the past year.  On th e comment by India relating to the provision of 
DFQF market access to LDCs, he indicated that he  would be happy to address it under the appropriate 
agenda item. Finally, he turned to Egypt's requ est to drop the present agenda item.  Dropping an 
agenda item meant that the item had been discusse d, and that discussion had been exhausted.  If 
Members felt that the discussion was exhausted,  he said that he supported Egypt's request. 
84. The representative of China said that he did not r eally wish to enter into  this discussion, since 
he believed that the present agenda item was not the most appropriate one for a consideration of the 
submission by China, Egypt and India.  However, after hearing the intervention by the US, he felt 
obliged to say a few words. Since mo st of the concerns had been touched upon by Egypt and India, he 
said that he would limit himself to making two poin ts.  He firstly said that he shared Egypt's 
astonishment with the US' observation that the notification of the GCC Customs Union under the 
Enabling Clause was not valid.  His understanding, wh ich had been confirmed by the Chairman, was 
that the GCC had not revoked the Enabling Clause notifi cation.  In this light, he indicated that it 
would be useful to hear further from the US on its view  of the status of the latter notification.  Second, 
he said that he could not agree with the US that a decision had been taken on the venue for 
consideration of the GCC Customs Union.  On the contrary, such a decision had not been taken, in 
China's view.  This was why the GCC Customs Uni on notification was still on the CTD's agenda.  He 
added that, in the course of inform al consultations, he had heard a si milar view being expressed by the 
Chairman.  The Chairman's formal announcemen t on this matter would facilitate Members' 
discussion. 
85. The representative of Japan said that there was no agreed definition in the WTO of what was 
meant by "dual notification".  Nevertheless, there wa s a clear difference in the situation regarding the 
GCC Customs Union on the one hand, and the situ ation regarding the ASEAN-Korea Agreement and 
the India-Korea Agreement on the other.  In th e case of the GCC Customs Union, the same parties 
had notified the agreement under diffe rent provisions.  For the other two, the notifications under two 
provisions had been made by different parties to th e same agreement.  He added that the mandate of  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 19 
 
 
  the NGR was to review the RTAs TM, and questions  relating to notifications formed an important 
part of the review process.  He encouraged Members to focus their efforts on discussing the dual 
notification issue in the NGR.  He also emphasized that his delegation had no intention to undermine 
the Enabling Clause, and that Japan wanted to work  constructively with Members to find a solution.  
He noted, however, that Japan was still unsure as to what would be the outcome of a discussion in the 
CTD. 
86. The representative of Egypt said that the Chairm an had held informal consultations over the 
past six months.  These consultations had include d China, Egypt, India, the EU, the US, Japan, 
Australia, Ecuador and others.  In the course of these consultations, the Chairman had pronounced 
several times that no decision had been taken regard ing the consideration of the GCC Customs Union.  
This was why the three RTAs which had been "d ually notified" were still on the CTD's agenda.  
Egypt requested that the Chairm an make the same pronouncement in the CTD.  He also asked 
whether the Secretariat or the US delegation had any recollection of the GCC countries having made a 
notification of a customs union before the establishm ent of the WTO.  He pointed to a notification 
that Kuwait had made in 1984 under the En abling Clause concerning the Unified Economic 
Agreement among GCC States.  Article 4 of that agreement stated that the GCC countries would 
establish a customs union.  The notification, circulated in GATT document L/5676, had been discussed in two successive meetings of the CTD under the heading concerning preferential 
agreements among developing countries that invoked the Enabling Clause.  At the time, no Member had raised any objections to this notification.  He  could not understand, therefore, why objections 
were being raised now on what wa s a subsequent notification of an  RTA that had been established 
several years ago and notified under the Enabling Clause. 
87. The representative of India noted that some de legations had stated that the term "dual 
notification" was not part of WTO terminology.  He wondered whether it would be useful if the 
Secretariat could prepare a dictionary of WTO term inology.  He added that his delegation would be 
happy to use any other term to discu ss the issue.  For example, the term "dually notified", as used by 
the US in its submission to the NGR, was acceptable.   However, he also pointed out that not accepting 
a term did not mean that the problem did not exist.  In the course of the NGR's work, the Chairs of the 
CTD and the CRTA had been asked to submit reports, and both reports highlighted the dual notification issue.  The issue was, therefore, very real in India's view.  Like China and Egypt, India 
requested the Chairman to make an announcement concerning his position on any decision taken with 
regard to the consideration of the GCC Customs Union. 
88. The Chairman said that it was very obvious that there were differences between Members.  
As there was no consensus, this meant that th e issue had not been resolved.  This was his 
understanding. 
89. The Committee took note of all interventions.   
E. TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM FOR PREF ERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS (WT/L/806)  – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN  
90. The Chairman said that the General Counc il had taken a decision on 14 December 2010 – 
contained in document WT/L/806 – to establish, on a provisional basis, a Tr ansparency Mechanism 
for PTAs which was to be implemented by the CTD.  He wished to make a few preliminary remarks 
on the Mechanism.  Given that th e Mechanism brought a whole new layer of work to the CTD, he 
said that it was clear that Members would only learn through experience how to make the Mechanism 
function best, and there would certainly be opportuniti es in the future to revisit the manner in which it 
was being implemented.  It was only gradually that  all the elements of the Mechanism would come 
together in the most appropriate way.  That bei ng said, he indicated that it was important to start 
operationalizing the Mechanism, which was the purpose of his intervention today.  He said that he WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 20  
 
  would touch on three issues in particular, which he  saw as being important  in operationalizing the 
Mechanism in the immediate future.  As far as he  was aware, no new PTAs had been notified since 
the Mechanism came into force.  Therefore, his comments would deal only with existing PTAs that 
had already been notified to the WTO before th e Mechanism was adopted by the General Council. 
91. The first issue concerned the factual abstracts of existing PTAs.  According to paragraph 21 
of the Mechanism, the WTO Secretariat was required to prepare a factual abstract of each PTA that 
was in force when the transparen cy procedures were adopted.  The factual abstracts, for which a 
template was provided in Annex 3, were to be prepared in full consultation with the notifying 
Member.  In this regard, he informed the Committ ee that the Secretariat had begun an examination of 
the information requirements in the template in A nnex 3, in light of what information was already 
available on some existing PTAs notified to the WTO.  A preliminary observation was that it 
appeared that available information was not sufficient to complete the factual ab stracts, and that input 
from notifying Members would be necessary.  Member s would be kept informed of issues relating to 
the factual abstracts, which the Secretariat would begin preparing as soon as possible. 
92. The second issue, which also concerned PTAs in force and already notified to the WTO, was 
related to the requirements for notifying Members in sections D and E of the Mechanism.  In 
particular, according to paragraph 25, PTAs alre ady notified to the WTO and in force would be 
subject to the procedures under these two sections.  The procedures referred to comprised, among 
others, the requirement in paragraph 15 to notify on an annual basis, and no later than 30 June, 
changes affecting the implementation of the PTA in the previous calendar year.  In addition, as laid 
out in paragraph 16, the notifying Member was to s ubmit, by 31 October, specified data relating to 
imports in the previous year.  Paragraph 17 sp ecified that the annual information required in 
paragraphs 15 and 16 need not be made available if  this information had already been submitted to the 
Integrated Data Base or had otherwise been provide d to the Secretariat in an appropriate electronic 
format.  Furthermore, paragraph 18 indicated that  developing country Members that had technical 
constraints fulfilling the paragraph 16 requirements woul d not be expected to do so until 31 July 2013, 
and could submit to the CTD by 31 July 2012 an outline of the steps to be taken to fulfil the 
requirements. 
93. The third point he wished to raise concer ned the electronic database on PTAs that the 
Secretariat was required to maintain, as laid out in  paragraph 24.  On this, he understood that the 
Secretariat had begun taking the necessary steps to d esign and structure the database.  While the work 
was still in its early stages, his understanding was that , in the coming months, the Secretariat would be 
in a position to provide Members with a demonstrat ion of what the database would look like.  He 
concluded by saying that while he believed that th ese were some of the pressing issues in the context 
of the immediate implementation of the Mechanism,  there were other questions that Members would 
need to consider going forward.  He indicated that he would be providing a full briefing to his 
successor, who would consult Members, as appropria te, so as to ensure that the Transparency 
Mechanism for PTAs became fully functional as soon as possible. 
94. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement. 
F. ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HONG KONG DECISION ON DUTY -FREE 
AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET ACCESS FOR LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  
95. 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.  At the present meeting, the CTD was to undertake its fifth annua l review of the implementation of the Hong Kong 
Decision, as mandated in Annex F of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  He proposed that the  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 21 
 
 
  EU first make its presentation on its new GSP rules of origin, after which th e floor would be opened 
for any comments on the presentation, as well as othe r interventions in the context of the CTD's 
annual review. 
96. The representative of the European Union said th at the EU had indicated at the last CTD 
meeting that it was about to issue new rules of origin  for its GSP scheme.  The new rules of origin had 
been in force since 1 January 2011, and had b een formally notified under the WTO Agreement on 
Rules of Origin.  Information was also being provi ded in the CTD, given the relevance of rules of 
origin for the operation of the EU's GSP scheme, an d in particular the advantages that the new rules 
provided to LDCs.  The EU was also anticipating th e requirements of the new PTAs TM, in particular 
in the context of informing the CTD of changes in the operation of the GSP sc heme.  She recalled that 
a full presentation by an expert from Brussels – par ticularly on the advantages introduced for LDCs – 
had been made at the last meeting of the Sub-Committee on LDCs, and she referred to this 
presentation for the full details. 
97. She said that the origin of the reform went b ack to 2005, when the obj ective was stated that 
the rules determining the acquisition of origin shoul d be simpler to understa nd and apply, and should 
be development-friendly – notably vis-à-vis  the LDCs, which needed the most to profit from available 
market access.  The reform of the GSP rules of or igin was based on three pillars.  The first pillar of 
the reform foresaw the establishment of appropriate rules determining the acquisition of origin.  It was 
worth noting in this regard that the new rules of origin contained elements of relaxation for all 
beneficiary countries, and particularly the LDCs .  The second pillar aimed to set up efficient 
procedures and lay down the responsibilities of operators  and authorities.  In particular, the current 
paper-based system of certification of origin would be replaced by a statement on origin to be given 
directly by exporters.  The transition to the new sy stem would take place gradually, starting in 2017.  
The third pillar aimed at improving administrative cooperation between the customs authorities of the 
beneficiary countries and those of the EU member States. 
98. She went on to provide some details on general provisions applicable for GSP rules of origin 
as a whole.  For fishery products, the direct transp ort rule would be replaced with a more flexible 
non-manipulation principle, and beneficiary countries w ould also benefit in an enhanced manner from 
the system of derogations from rules of origin.  Be neficiary countries could apply for derogations in 
the case of natural catastrophes, as well as on economic grounds.  Regional cumulation was 
maintained and enhanced.  Cumulation allowed count ries with identical rul es of origin to work 
together to manufacture products eligible for pr eferential treatment.  Cumulation conditions for 
regional cumulation were relaxed.  In addition to the previous possibilities, cumulation between 
member countries of ASEAN and the South Asia n Association for Regi onal Cooperation (SAARC) 
was possible.  Extended cumulation with countries w ith which the EU had a fre e-trade agreement that 
was in force was possible under certain conditions.  A new MERCOSUR cumulation region has also 
been created.  As for product-specific rules, she sa id that the new rules contained simple criteria 
which could be easily understood by operators and easily controlled by administrations.  
Product-specific rules were generally relaxed for all beneficiary countries.  She pointed, for example, 
to the increase in the percentage thresholds of fo reign content.  In addition, relaxed and simplified 
sector-specific rules had been adopted in a number of  sectors of interest to developing countries, both 
in agricultural products and in industrial products. 
99. She highlighted that special treatment was gr anted to LDCs relative to other beneficiary 
countries.  This was the first time that the EU woul d introduce a differentiation to the benefit of LDCs 
at the level of the applicable GSP rules of orig in.  Until now, only the preference made available to 
LDCs was more favourable.  Now, the rules of origin  themselves were specifically targeted to the 
needs of LDCs.  This was a far reaching policy d ecision for the EU.  Since LDCs tended to export 
mainly in some sectors, the relaxation of the rul es of origin focused on these products.  LDCs would, 
therefore, be able to comply with the rules more easily, allowing them to benefit more from the tariff WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 22  
 
  preferences granted by the EU.  For example, th e textiles rule for LDCs was single transformation 
only, instead of the previous double transforma tion.  For processed agricultural products, the 
relaxation took the form of the possibility to integr ate a higher threshold of 70 per cent of foreign 
content.  
100. The EU believed that these changes went in the direction sought by the LDC Group, as laid 
out in the Group's submissions on this matter.  Th e EU would provide information and training in 
order to help beneficiary countries to reap full bene fit from the reform, paying particular attention to 
the introduction of the system of self-certification which would start in 2017, and for which additional time until 2020 would be provided if needed.  Th e objective was to ensu re that the necessary 
information and training activities for beneficiary co untries was provided so as to allow all concerned 
parties to prepare themselves to be able to apply the new rules of origin.  She invited any delegation 
with queries to contact the EU. 
101. The representative of Egypt said that it would ha ve been useful to have information on the 
EU's GSP rules of origin made available in advan ce of the meeting.  He indicated that he had a 
number of questions on the EU's presentation.  He noted  firstly that the GSP rules of origin had been 
relaxed, and particularly so fo r textiles and agricultural products.  In this regard, he asked how 
different were the rules of origin relative to t hose under the various Economic Partnership Agreement 
protocols.  He also sought more information on th e relationship with the "Pan Euro Med" rules of 
origin. He observed that the foreign content rules had been relaxed, and asked whether a drawback 
rule was still applied.  He additionally asked for more detail on the regional cumulation that had been 
referred to. Finally, in the context of the 2017 date th at had been mentioned, he asked for clarification 
as to when the changes were to be applied. 
102. The representative of India said that paragra ph 47 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration 
placed an obligation on developed countries to provi de DFQF market access for products originating 
from LDCs.  The Declaration also encouraged deve loping-country Members declaring themselves in a 
position to do so, to provide such treatment to  LDCs' products.  In accordance with the Hong Kong 
Declaration, India became the first developing  country to announce a comprehensive scheme under 
the DFQF mandate to provide zero-duty and prefer ential market access for all LDCs.  The Scheme, 
designated as the Duty Free Tariff Preference (D FTP) Scheme for the LDCs, was announced by the 
Indian Prime Minister on the occasion of the Indi a-Africa Forum Summit of African Heads of States 
and Governments in New Delhi in April 2008.  
103. India had taken the utmost care to ensure that the DFTP Scheme provided effective and 
substantial market access, especially to products of  export interest to the LDCs.  More importantly, 
the Scheme was comprehensive, simple and non-reciprocal.  It provided preferential market access on tariff lines that comprised 92.5 per cent of the globa l exports of all LDCs.  The duty-free list included 
85 per cent of total tariff lines at the 6-digit leve l of the Harmonized System.  The rules of origin 
stipulated a change in tariff heading plus 30 per cen t domestic value addition.  Only 6 per cent of lines 
were in the exclusion list of the Scheme.  Products of immediate inte rest to LDCs wh ich were covered 
under the DFTP Scheme included cotton, cocoa,  aluminium ores, copper ores, cashew nuts, 
cane-sugar, ready-made garments, fish  fillets and non-industrial diamonds.  
104. The Scheme was open to all 49 LDCs - including 33 LDCs in Africa - regardless of whether 
they were WTO Members.  The Scheme was proced urally simple to operate and required each LDC 
to submit a letter of intent and the list of agencies and officials authorized to issue the certificate of 
origin.  To date, letters of intent had been  received from 26 LDCs, namely Bangladesh, Benin, 
Burundi, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Central Republic  of Africa, Timor Leste, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 
the Gambia, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Madagascar, Ma lawi, Maldives, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, 
Rwanda, Samoa, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzan ia, Uganda and Zambia.  Of these, only Burundi,  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 23 
 
 
  Timor Leste, Eritrea, Lesotho, Mali and Zambia had yet to submit details of agencies authorized to 
issue a certificate of origin.  
105. His delegation urged the remaining LDCs to fi nalize their internal processes, and to intimate 
to India their willingness to avail of the benefits under this Scheme, and more  generally to benefit 
from India's substantial market access opening to th e LDCs.  He additionally pointed to some other 
activities being jointly organized by the Departme nt of Commerce and the Ministry of External 
Affairs of India. These included the training of Trade and Commerce Ministries' officials from LDCs by the WTO Studies Centre in New Delhi, capac ity building programmes for countries acceding to 
the WTO, and cotton development intervention. 
106. The representative of Switzerland said that it was with great pleasure that her delegation 
wished to inform Members that the Swiss Government  had decided to go in the same direction as the 
EU with regard to GSP rules of origin.  In par ticular, the Swiss Federal C ouncil had adopted a revised 
ordinance on origin rules for tariff preferences for developing countries.  The revised ordinance, 
which was due to enter into force on 1 May 2011,  would pave the way to enhanced access to the 
Swiss market for goods from developing countries.  It aimed to boost the use of the Swiss GSP by 
developing countries.  The Swiss GSP was currently being used to 40 per cent of its potential because 
of, among other things, the complexity of rules conf erring national origin to goods.  In 2010, goods 
imported into Switzerland under the Swiss GSP am ounted to CHF4.3 billion.  They could have 
amounted to CHF10.5 billion, had all exporters pot entially qualifying for the Swiss GSP made use of 
it.  
107. The softening of origin rules, as foreseen in  the revised ordinance, enhanced access to the 
Swiss market for products from developing countries.  The main modifications were a reduction in the 
number of specific rules and in the local value-a dded requested.  Moreover, a large number of goods 
from LDCs were granted softer rules than goods from other developing countries.  In adopting its revised ordinance, Switzerland had adapted its preferen tial origin rules to be consistent with those the 
EU adopted at the end of 2010.  The similarity of the rules with those of the EU - as well as with those 
of Norway and Turkey - greatly facilitated the trans it of products qualifying for GSP treatment on the 
European continent.  Producers from developing countries could thus take advantage of a unified European market with respect to origin rules. 
108. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had a longstanding 
commitment to transparency, and was pleased to par ticipate in the present annual review.  He stressed 
that the US remained fully committed to implemen ting the DFQF Decision on the terms agreed to at 
the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, together wi th the results of an agreement on the overall 
negotiations under the Doha Developm ent Agenda (DDA).  Backed by the results of many studies, his 
delegation reiterated its strong belief that the best  result for all developing countries - including the 
LDCs - was an ambitious package that opened ne w markets worldwide.  As such, the Doha Round 
was a single undertaking for a good reason, since the best package could be achieved if all 
contributions were tied up together.  The US was also committed to implementing the DFQF Decision 
in a manner that would result in meaningful opportu nities for the products of LDCs, concurrent with 
implementing the results of a successful completion of the overall DDA. 
109. To ensure meaningful US implementation of  DFQF for LDCs, the US was carefully assessing 
the existing level of market share of specific LDCs , and the extent to which the LDCs were already 
benefitting from US preference programmes.  The US  was already particularly open to Sub-Saharan 
African (SSA) countries.  In 2010, 99.7 per cent of  non-oil US imports from beneficiary countries of 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) en tered the US duty free.  Many SSA LDCs were 
active users of US trade preference programmes.  Th is was also true for Haiti, the only LDC in the 
western hemisphere. WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 24  
 
  110. In its analysis of DFQF implementation, the US  was considering how best to ensure that a 
range of LDCs, such as SSA LDCs and Haiti, could c ontinue to have some market access and benefit 
from US preference programmes.  One area under review concerned apparel trade.  Data on chapters 61 and 62 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedul e (HTS) of the US showed that between 2004 
and 2010, US apparel imports from Bangladesh in creased by 105 per cent and from Cambodia by 
56 per cent, even though both countries were curr ently suppliers on a most-favoured-nation (MFN) 
basis.  During the same period, US imports from AGOA beneficiary countries dropped by 58 per cent 
and from African LDCs by 57 per cent.  While Bangladesh and Cambodia had gained US market 
share, up 89 per cent and 44 per cent respectively, S ub-Saharan Africa's market share had dropped by 
61 per cent for AGOA beneficiaries and by 60 per cen t for AGOA LDCs.  He reiterated the US' full 
commitment to implement the DFQF Decision in a manner consistent with its commitment at 
Hong Kong and that would result in meaningful oppor tunities for the products of LDCs.  The US was 
also working to ensure a strong overall market opening result in the Doha Round that would benefit 
all LDCs. 
111. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group, expressed regret that the 
convening of the 81st Session of the CTD had been delayed.  He, however, noted with appreciation the 
Chairman's efforts to resolve the differen ces over the agenda for the present meeting.  
112. He went on to say that the LDC Group reiterate d that the enhancement of market access was a 
critical step in the integration of LDCs into the global economy and the multilateral trading system.  
The LDCs remained thankful to those Members that were providing enhanced market access for products originating from LDCs.  He recalled that a commitment had been made during the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference to notify on an annual basis the implementation of the schemes 
adopted under Decision 36 in Annex F, so as to enab le the CTD to annually review the steps taken to 
provide DFQF market access to LDCs and to repor t to the General Council for appropriate action.  
Accordingly, the LDC Group welcomed and appreciat ed the steps that had been taken by several 
Members to meaningfully enhance market access for products originating from LDCs.  However, the 
LDCs also reiterated that there was still room for fu rther work to be done by developed countries, and 
developing countries in a position to do so, in order to fully and effectively implement the Decision, 
including with regard to the simplification and tran sparency of rules of origin.  He called on Members 
to live up to the spirit and letter of the mandate  in the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  
113. While the LDCs appreciated the updates that ha d been made to preferential schemes, they 
remained concerned over the rather limited amount of  information made available to the CTD.  The 
LDC Group hoped that Members would give further atte ntion to the matter in view of its critical 
importance for LDCs.  The Group remained read y to engage constructively with Members on 
outstanding issues concerning DFQF market access and rules of origin.  He highlighted in particular 
that LDCs faced constraints in properly utilizing certa in preferential schemes, due to stringent rules of 
origin.  In this regard, he recalled that Anne x F of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration urged 
developed countries, and developing countries in a pos ition to do so, to ensure that preferential rules 
of origin applicable to imports from LDCs were transparent, simple and contributed to facilitating 
market access.  The LDC Group had recently subm itted a modified rules-of-origin proposal, and 
looked forward to having substantive discussions on this proposal.  In the meantime, the Group was 
also further modifying the proposal to bring about greater clarity.  He also expressed the LDCs' appreciation to the EU for its rece nt operationalization of its new G SP rules of origin.  The Group was 
currently examining the actual impact of the new rules of origin on LDCs' exports and would provide 
feedback in due course.  
114. He said that, at the last meeting of th e Sub-Committee on LDCs, the LDC Group had made 
some observations on a similar presentation by the EU, especially in relation to registration procedures and the costs and export benchmarks for micro and small enterprises.  He hoped that the 
EU had taken note of those points.  The LDCs would continue to ha ve discussions with the EU on any  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 25 
 
 
  additional points that they might wish to highl ight.  He expressed appreciation for the EU's 
understanding of the particular challenges faced by LDCs, and the initiative to accordingly calibrate 
its GSP rules of origin to address some of th ese concerns.  The Group also welcomed the recent 
announcement by Switzerland to go in the same dire ction as the EU in terms of simplifying the GSP 
rules of origin.  
115. He additionally underscored th e continued need for appropriate technical assistance and 
capacity building support for LDCs.  In this regard , he expressed appreciation for the contributions 
made by various development partners to the DDA Global Trust Fund, the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework and other bilateral arrange ments targeted at enhancing the capacities of LDCs.  Finally, he 
expressed hope that the Programme of Action to be  adopted by the upcoming Fourth UN Conference 
on LDCs would reflect substantive provisions with regard to preferential schemes for LDCs.  The 
Istanbul Programme of Action for LDCs should fu rther build on the gains and achievements made 
through the Brussels Programme of Action adop ted in 2001. 
116. The representative of Egypt thanked the US and India for the information they had shared 
under the present agenda item.  He asked whether the US could shed some light on the obstacles that 
it was facing in renewing its GSP scheme. 
117. The Chairman inquired whether the EU and the US representatives wished to respond to the 
questions that had been posed on their interventions under the present agenda item. 
118. The representative of the European Union invited Egypt to submit its questions in writing, so 
that these could be forwarded to Brussels. 
119. The representative of the United States simila rly invited Egypt so submit its question in 
writing, so that the question could be forwarded to his capital. 
120. The representative of Bangladesh said that he  wished to make a comment on the US' 
intervention, and particularly on the point that  was made concerning Bangladesh's performance 
relative to other countries.  He noted in this rega rd that the comments made by the US representative 
did not provide the full picture of Bangladesh's situation, and that he did not subscribe to them.  Since 
Bangladesh was engaging with the US on such i ssues, he hoped that this matter would soon be 
clarified.    
121. The Committee took note of all interventions.  
G. OTHER BUSINESS  
122. The Chairman said that he wished to raise 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.  He said that it had been the CTD's pract ice 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 statisti cal background paper on the particip ation of developing countries in 
global trade, in order to assist Members in their di scussion.  He noted that the last such discussion by 
the CTD on this subject had taken place in Decembe r 2009.  He proposed that the CTD have another 
discussion on the subject at its last meeting of 2011, for which the Secretariat would once again 
update its background paper using the most recent trade statistics. 
123. It was so agreed. WT/COMTD/M/81 
Page 26  
 
  H. 
ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SUB -COMMITTEE ON LEAST -DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  
124. The Chairman said that he had undertaken consultations with Members concerning the 
Chairmanship of the Sub-Committee on LDCs.  On th e basis of his consultations, he was pleased to 
inform the Committee that a consensus had emer ged for H.E. Steffen Smidt, Ambassador and 
Permanent Representative of Denmark to the UN and ot her international organi zations in Geneva, to 
serve as the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on LDCs.  He said that Ambassador Smidt had vast 
experience in the international arena, especially on development issues.  As Chairman of the Working 
Party on the Accession of Ethiopia, Ambassador Smidt was playing an instrumental role in advancing 
the accession of Ethiopia to the WTO.  Among Am bassador Smidt's previous positions were his 
tenure as Director-General of the Directorate-Gene ral for Development at the European Commission 
in Brussels from 1995 to 1997, and his time as Amb assador to the OECD and UNESCO in Paris in 
2006 and 2007.  Before taking up his present pos ition, Ambassador Smidt was the Ambassador and 
Under-Secretary for Global Challenges at the Mi nistry of Foreign Affairs in Copenhagen. 
125. The Committee elected Ambassador Smidt as Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on LDCs. 
126. The Chairman congratulated Ambassador Smidt on his election, and wished him all success 
in his new responsibilities, which began immediately.  He also expressed his appreciation to the 
outgoing Chairman, Ambassador Feyder of Luxembourg, for all his efforts and initiatives in steering the Sub-Committee over the past few years. 
127. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group, welcomed the election of 
Ambassador Smidt.  He said that the LDC Group attached great importance to the work of the 
Sub-Committee on LDCs, and believed that the Sub-Committee would be able continue to work to 
achieve its mandate under the able guidance of Amb assador Smidt.  He noted that Ambassador Smidt 
was eminently qualified to serve as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on LDCs, and that all LDC Ambassadors enjoyed a very good relationship with him. 
128. The incoming Chairman of the Sub-Committee on LDCs said that he was honoured to be 
entrusted with the task of chairing the Sub-Committee, and would do his utmost to carry out his 
responsibilities in this position.  He indicated that  he would welcome the guidance and advice of the 
Secretariat. 
I. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF TH E COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT  
129. The Chairman said that the General Council at  its meeting on 22 February had announced the 
new Chairpersons for 2010.  He was pleased to in form the Committee that H.E. Dr. Anthony Mothae 
Maruping of Lesotho, Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN and other international 
organizations in Geneva, had been chosen as th e new Chairman of the CTD.  He said that 
Ambassador Maruping had been in his current Am bassadorial position in Geneva since October 2006, 
and had served as the Chairman of the Enhan ced Integrated Framework Board since 2007.  
Ambassador Maruping was chosen as Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods in 2010 by the 
General Council and had held a numb er of other prominent positions in the WTO, including the Chair 
of the African Group of Ambassadors in 2006 and the Coordinator of the LDC Group in 2008 and up 
to mid-2009.  Since 2010, Ambassad or Maruping had served as the Vice-Chairman of UNCTAD's 
Trade and Development Board, and was currently th e President of the Geneva Chapter of the G-77 
and China. 
130. The Committee elected Ambassador Maruping as Chairman of the CTD. 
131. The incoming Chairman thanked Members for ha ving placed their trust in him to chair the 
CTD, and expressed appreciation to the outgoing Chairm an for his work over the last year.  He also  WT/COMTD/M/81 
 Page 27 
 
 
  congratulated Ambassador Smidt for his election as the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on LDCs.  
He noted the challenges he faced as the Chairman of  the CTD, given that the CTD was the focal point 
for the consideration and coordination of work on de velopment in the WTO.  He assured Members of 
his intention to continue to give a high profile to  the work of the Committee,  which included the work 
of the CTD in Regular Session, the work on Aid fo r Trade, and the work of the CTD's Dedicated 
Sessions on RTAs and Small Economies.  He added th at he looked forward to working with Members 
on the various CTD issues, and in particular on th e new Transparency Mechanism for PTAs, so as to 
ensure that the Mechan ism became fully functional as soon as possible. 
132. Looking ahead to development-related events in  the course of 2011, he mentioned the Fourth 
UN Conference on LDCs, the Third Global Review of Aid for Trade, and the meeting of the UN's 
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).  He also highlighted the importance of the on-going 
preparations for the UNCTAD XIII Conference, whic h would be held in 2012.  He noted that the 
recovery from the recent global economic and fina ncial crisis was selectiv e and fragile, and was 
sluggish on job creation.  There was a risk of  speculative bubbles being created, which could 
eventually burst and lead to a relapse of the cr isis. Vigilance was therefore advised, and challenges 
remained. 
133. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group, welcomed 
Ambassador Maruping and assured him of the full support of the LDCs.  The LDC Group was 
confident that the incoming Chairman would carry out his responsibilities with the highest degree of efficiency.  Appreciation was also expressed to  the outgoing Chairman for his constructive 
engagement with the LDC Group, as well as for his sustained efforts to resolve the differences 
between some Members so as to advance the work of the Committee. 
134. The representative of Egypt congratulated Ambassador Maruping on assuming the 
Chairmanship of the CTD, and wished him all success in steering the Committee's work over the 
coming months.  Egypt believed that the experi ence the incoming Chairman brought to the CTD 
would be an addition to the valuable work th at the Committee undertook as the focal point for 
consideration and coordination of a ll work on development issues in the WTO.  His delegation looked 
forward to working constructively with him.  With  regard to the outgoing Chairman, he said that 
Egypt wished to give credit where credit was due.  Although his delega tion would have liked 
Ambassador Erwidodo to pronounce that no decision had been taken by the CTD on the GCC issue, 
he expressed his sincere appreciation for the outg oing Chairman's tireless efforts.  He said that 
Ambassador Erwidodo had eloquently steered the work  of the CTD through some very rough waters, 
and with all neutrality and objectivity.  The outgoi ng Chairman's patience and valuable contributions 
would not go unnoticed in the CTD. 
135. The representative of India congratulated Amba ssador Maruping on his election as Chairman 
of the CTD, and assured him of India's full cooperation.  He also expressed his appreciation for the 
tireless efforts of Ambassador Erwidodo in steering the work of the CTD. 
136. The representative of the European Union we lcomed Ambassador Maruping as the new 
Chairman of the CTD.  She also thanked Ambassador Erwidodo for his hard work and his patience 
over the past year. 
137. The representative of the United States thanked Ambassador Erwidodo for his efforts in 
steering the work of the CTD.  He also welcomed  Ambassador Maruping, and indicated that the US 
looked forward to his leadership of the Committee. 
138. The meeting was adjourned.  
__________