WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4
19 October 2009 
 (09-5059) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Dedicated Session  
 
 
 
WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES  
 
Compilation paper prepared by the Secretariat  
 
Revision  
  
I.
 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .5 
II. MANDATE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK...........................................................................6  
A. PARAGRAPH 35 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION – WT/MIN(01)/ DEC/1 
(20 NOVEMBER  2001) .................................................................................................................6  
B. PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES FRAMEWORK AND 
PROCEDURES – WT/L/447  (1 MARCH 2002) .................................................................................6  
C. PARAGRAPH 1.D OF THE 1 AUGUST :  2004  GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION - WT/L/579 .................7  
D. PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION - WT/MIN(05)/ DEC 
(18 DECEMBER 2005) ..................................................................................................................7  
D.1 REFERENCES TO SMALL ECONOMIES IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE SECTION ON NAMA IN 
THE HONG  KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ............................................................................7  
D.2 REFERENCES TO SMALL EC ONOMIES IN THE SERVICES – ANNEX C OF THE HONG KONG 
MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ........................................................................................................8  
E. OTHER TEXTS OFTEN CITED BY  SMALL ECONOMIES IN THE 1 AUGUST 2004  GENERAL 
COUNCIL DECISION – ANNEX B NAMA FRAMEWORK – WT/L/579  (2 AUGUST  2004)....................8  
III. DECISIONS ...................................................................................................................... ........9  
A. COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED SESSION ON SMALL 
ECONOMIES ............................................................................................................................... ..9 
1. Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small Economies in 
Meeting their Obligations under the Agreements on SPS Measures, TBT and 
TRIPS - WT/COMTD/SE/5 (3 October 2006)........................................................................9  
B. COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ................................................11  
1. Decision of the General Council of 27 July 2007 - WT/L/691 (31 July 2007) Based on the Draft Decision of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures of 13 July 2007 (G/SCM/120)................................................................................11
 
IV. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE - SPECIAL SESSION ............................................18  
A. CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT ...................................................................................................18  
1. Revised Draft Modalities for Agricultu re - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 (6 December 2008) .........18  
B. HISTORIC EVOLUTION ................................................................................................................23  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 2  
 
  1.
 Overview of Small Economies' Positions on the Agriculture Negotiations – 
JOB(05)/161 (27 July 2005)....................................................................................................2 3 
2. Proposal by the Small, Vulnerable Econom ies on Market Access in Agriculture – 
TN/AG/GEN/11 (11 November 2005)....................................................................................24  
3. Report by the Chairman to the TNC – TN/AG/21 (28 November 2005), also 
Annex A of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration ...........................................................24  
4. Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs  – Room Document (4 May 2006)..........................24  
5. Contribution by the SVEs on the Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs – 
JOB(06)/164 (31 May 2006)....................................................................................................26  
6. Chairman's Revised Consolidated Ref erence Paper on Possible Modalities on 
Market Access – (9 June 2006) ..............................................................................................26  
7. Revised Consolidated Reference Pape r on Modalities on Market Access – 
Contribution on the Treatment of SV Es – JOB(06)/196 (19 June 2006) ...........................27  
8. Draft Possible Modalities on Agriculture – TN/AG/W/3 (12 July 2006)............................27  
9. Submission on the Treatment of Small Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) – 
JOB(07)/47 (11 April 2007) ....................................................................................................2 7 
10. Communication from the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Special 
Session - Second Instalment (25 May 2007)..........................................................................29  
11. Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4 (1 August 2007).........................29  
12. Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.1 (8 February 2008) ..........34  
13. Revised Draft Modalities for Agricultu re - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.2 (19 May 2008).................39  
14. Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.3 (10 July 2008) .................43  
15. G-33 Proposal on the Treatment of SSM provided to the SVEs - TN/AG/GEN/29 
(10 February 2009)............................................................................................................. .....48  
V. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS FOR 
NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.................................................................................50  
A. CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT ...................................................................................................50  
1. Fourth Revision of Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural Market Access – 
TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3 (6 December 2008) .............................................................................50  
B. HISTORIC EVOLUTION ................................................................................................................51  
1. Market Access for Non-Agricultural Produc ts - Treatment of Small, Vulnerable 
Economies in the NAMA Negotiations - TN/MA/W/66 (11 November 2005)....................51  
2. Progress Report by the Chairman to  the Trade Negotiations Committee – 
TN/MA/16 (24 November 2005), also Annex B of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration .................................................................................................................... ..........52
 
3. NAMA – Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Criteria and 
Treatment of SVEs, submission by the SVEs – (1 May 2006).............................................52  
4. Small and Vulnerable Economies - Text Proposal for the Chairman of NAMA by the Delegations of Costa Rica and Ur uguay – Room Document (30 May 2006)..........53
 
5. NAMA 11 - Non-Paper – Small Vulnerable Economies – (30 May 2006)..........................54   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. Proposal on Small, Vulnerable Economies by Norway – Room Document 
(6 June 2006).................................................................................................................. ..........54  
7. Treatment of Small, Vulnerable Economi es in the NAMA Negotiations, Proposal 
by the SVEs – (15 June 2006).................................................................................................55  
8. Towards NAMA Modalities – TN/MA/W/80 (19 July 2006)...............................................56  
9. Draft NAMA Modalities – JOB(07)/126 (17 July 2007) ......................................................57  
10. Submission by Small, Vulnerable Economies on Modalities to Apply in Non-Agricultural Market Access – TN/MA/W/100 (17 January 2008) ............................59
 
11. Draft Modalities for Non-Agricult ural Market Access - TN/MA/W/103 
(8 February 2008).............................................................................................................. ......60  
12. Submission by Small, Vulnerable Econom ies on Modalities Applicable to Non-
Agricultural Market Access - JOB(08)/26 (11 April 2008)..................................................62  
13. Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultur al Market Access Second Revision - 
TN/MA/W/103/Rev.1 (20 May 2008).....................................................................................63  
14. Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultur al Market Access – TN/MA/W/103/Rev.2 
(10 July 2008) ................................................................................................................. .........64  
VI. COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERV ICES SPECIAL SESSION.........................................66  
1. Services – Information Note (November 2005) ....................................................................66  
2. Outline of an SVE position on Possible Elements of a Services Text (23 January 
2008) .......................................................................................................................... ...............66  
VII. WORKING PARTY ON DOME STIC REGULATION .....................................................69  
1. Services - Trade-Related Concerns of Small, Vulnerable Economies in the 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  - JOB(06)/66/Rev.2 (10 July 2006).....................69  
VIII.  NEGOTIATING GROU P ON RULES.................................................................................72  
1. Fisheries Subsidies - TN/RL/W/136 (14 July 2003)..............................................................72  
2. WTO Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines – Architecture on Fisheries Subsidies 
Disciplines - TN/RL/GEN/57/Re v.2 (13 September 2005)...................................................72  
3. Special and Differential Treatment in the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations:  
Views of the Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - TN/RL/W/210/Rev.2 (22 June 2007)................................................................................................................. .........73
 
4. Drafting Proposal on Issues Relating to Article III.4 ("Special and Differential 
Treatment of Developing Country Memb ers") of the Fisheries Subsidies Annex 
to the SCM Agreement as Proposed by the Chair in TN/RL/W/213 - 
TN/RL/GEN/158 (22 May 2008) ............................................................................................76  
5. Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - Statement on Key Aspects Of Article III of the Fisheries Subsidies Annex- TN /RL/W/226/Rev.5 (22 September 2008) ..................77
 
6. Fisheries Subsidies Communication from Barbados on behalf of the SVEs - 
TN/RL/W/242 (7 October 2009) ............................................................................................78  
IX. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON TRADE FACILITATION .................................................82  
1. Regional Approaches to Trade Facilitation:  Enquiry Points - 
TN/TF/W/129/Rev.2 (10 March 2008)...................................................................................82  
X. COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES.....................83  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 4  
 
  A.
 HISTORIC EVOLUTION ...............................................................................................................83  
1. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures - G/SCM/W/535 a nd Add.1 (12 April 2006 and 20 July 
2006) .......................................................................................................................... ...............83  
2. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 and 537) – JOB(07)/49 (18 April 2007)..........83  
3. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 and 537) – JOB(07)/50 (19 April 2007)..........88  
4. Chairman's Proposal for the Text of a Draft Decision – JOB(07)/78 (6 June 
2007) .......................................................................................................................... ...............90  
5. Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures - 
Decision of the Committee of 13 Ju ly 2007– G/SCM/120 (17 July 2007)...........................94  
XI. AID FOR TRADE TASK FORCE......................................................................................101  
1. Aid for Trade - WT/AFT/W/18 (15 June 2006)..................................................................101  
XII. COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED SESSION 
ON SMALL ECONOMIES .................................................................................................105  
1. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade:  Designation of a Regional Body – 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15 (18 October 2005)..........................................................................105  
2. Agreement on the Application of Sani tary and Phytosanitary Measures:  
Designation of a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/16 (18 October 2005) ................105  
3. Accession to the WTO - WT/COMTD/SE/W/17 (18 October 2005) ................................105  
4. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement:  Designation of a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/18 (18 October 2005).............................................106
 
5. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade:  Designation of a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.1 (10 April 2006)....................................................................106
 
6. Agreement on the Application of Sani tary and Phytosanitary Measures:  
Designation of a Regional Body – WT /COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.1 (10 April 2006) ..........107  
7. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement:  Designation of a 
Regional Body – WT/COMTD/S E/W/18/Rev.1 (10 April 2006).......................................107  
8. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade:  Designation of a Regional Body – 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.2 (18 July 2006)......................................................................107  
9. Agreement on the Application of Sani tary and Phytosanitary Measures:  
Designation of a Regional Body – WT /COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.2 (18 July 2006) ............108  
10. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement:  Designation of a 
Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/ W/18/Rev.2 (18 July 2006).........................................109  
11. Draft Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small Economies in 
Meeting their Obligations under the Agreements on SPS Measures, TBT and 
TRIPS (27 September 2006).................................................................................................110  
12. Draft Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small Economies in 
Meeting their Obligations under the Agreements on SPS Measures, TBT and TRIPS (28 September 2006).................................................................................................111
 
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 5 
 
 
  I. INTRODUCTION 
 Paragraph 41 of the Hong K ong Ministerial Declaration1 instructs the CTD in Dedicated 
Session to monitor progress of the small economies' proposals in the negotiating and other bodies.  At 
its Fifteenth Dedicated Session on 20 July 2006, Me mbers requested that the Secretariat prepare a 
note that would help the CTD in Dedicated Session to monitor work currently underway in WTO and 
in the negotiating groups.  The Secretariat's pape r is based on the compilation paper that had been 
prepared by a group of small economies2 and incorporates the reports and draft texts by the various 
Chairs of the negotiating groups.   
 The present document attempts to reflect the current state of play of the small economies' 
issues discussed so far in the negotiating and other bodies, prior to the 7th Ministerial Conference.  
This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and does not prejudice the 
right of any Member to raise other concerns or  views related to the Work Programme on Small 
Economies.   
                                                      
1 WT/MIN(05)/DEC. 
2 WT/COMTD/SE/W/21/Rev.1. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 6  
 
  II. MANDATE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A. 
PARAGRAPH 35 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION – WT /MIN(01)/DEC/1 
(20 NOVEMBER  2001) 
We agree to a work programme, under the auspices of the General Council, to 
examine issues relating to the trade of sma ll economies.  The objective of this work is 
to frame responses to the trade-related issu es identified for the fuller integration of 
small, vulnerable economies into the multila teral trading system, and not to create a 
sub-category of WTO Members.  The General Council shall review the work programme and make recommendations for action to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference. 
B. 
PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE WORK PROGRAMME ON SMALL ECONOMIES FRAMEWORK AND 
PROCEDURES – WT/L/447 (1 MARCH 2002) 
In pursuance of this mandate, the Work Programme shall be undertaken in 
accordance with the following framework and procedures:   
(a) The Work Programme shall remain under the overall responsibility of 
the General Council. 
(b) The General Council shall have the Work Programme on Small 
Economies (WPSE) as a standing item on its agenda. 
(c) The objective of this work is to frame responses to the trade-related 
issues identified for the fuller integra tion of small, vulnerable economies 
into the multilateral trading system. 
(d) The General Council shall instruct the CTD to have a programme of 
work on small economies which will be  conducted in dedicated sessions 
of the CTD.   
(e) The CTD shall report regularly to  the General Council on the progress 
of work in the dedicated sessions. 
(f) The Chairperson of the regular CTD shall also be the Chair for the 
dedicated sessions of the CTD. 
(g) The dedicated sessions of the CTD shall have an agreed calendar of 
meetings to complete the work under its mandate. 
(h) The CTD will hold informal meetings as necessary with a view to 
assisting the formal process in the dedicated sessions of the CTD. 
(i) In accordance with the outcome of  the programme of work in the CTD, 
the General Council shall, as appropriate, direct relevant subsidiary bodies to frame responses to the trade -related issues identified by the 
CTD with a view to making recomme ndations for action to the Fifth 
Session of the Ministerial Conference as mandated.  This does not 
prejudice the right of Members to submit for consideration proposals 
relating to the concerns of small economies to the relevant WTO bodies.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (j) As and when necessary, the dedicated sessions of the CTD will work in 
collaboration with relevant subsidiary bodies. 
(k) Members are urged to make their own contributions to the work of the 
CTD under its programme of work.  The  General Council shall instruct 
the WTO Secretariat to provide rel evant information and factual 
analysis, inter alia, 
(i) on the impact of WTO rules on Small Economies; 
(ii) on the constraints faced by Small Economies as well as their 
shortfalls in institutional and adm inistrative capacities, including 
in the area of human resources; 
(iii) on the effects of Trade Liberalization on Small Economies. 
The CTD will also request information and analysis from other agencies 
and bodies that carry out work on small economies. 
 
C. PARAGRAPH 1.D OF THE 1 AUGUST :  2004  GENERAL COUNCIL DECISION - WT/L/579 
The trade-related issues identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable 
economies into the multilateral trading system, should also be addressed, without creating a sub-category of Members, as par t of a work programme, as mandated in 
paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
D. 
PARAGRAPH 41 OF THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION - WT /MIN(05)/DEC 
(18 DECEMBER 2005) 
We reaffirm our commitment to the Work Programme on Small Economies and urge 
Members to adopt specific measures that w ould facilitate the fuller integration of 
small, vulnerable economies into the mu ltilateral trading system, without creating a 
sub-category of WTO Members.  We take note of the report of the Committee on Trade and Development in Dedicated Session on the Work Programme on Small 
Economies to the General Council and agree to the recommendations on future work.  
We instruct the Committee on Trade  and Development, under the overall 
responsibility of the General Council, to con tinue the work in the Dedicated Session 
and to monitor progress of the small ec onomies' proposals in the negotiating and 
other bodies, with the aim of providing res ponses to the trade-related issues of small 
economies as soon as possible but no later than 31 December 2006.  We instruct the 
General Council to report on progress and ac tion taken, together with any further 
recommendations as appropriate, to our next Session.  
D.1 
REFERENCES TO SMALL ECONOMIES  IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE SECTION ON NAMA IN THE 
HONG  KONG MINISTERIAL DECLARATION  
 PARAGRAPH 21 
 
We note the concerns raised by small,  vulnerable economies, and instruct the 
Negotiating Group to establish ways to  provide flexibilities for these Members 
without creating a sub-category of WTO Members. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 8  
 
  D.2 
REFERENCES TO SMALL ECONOMIES IN THE SERVICES – ANNEX C OF THE HONG KONG 
MINISTERIAL DECLARATION  
PARAGRAPH 8 
 
Due consideration shall be given to pr oposals on trade-related concerns of small 
economies. 
E. OTHER TEXTS OFTEN CITED BY  SMALL ECONOMIES IN THE 1 AUGUST 2004  GENERAL COUNCIL 
DECISION – ANNEX B NAMA FRAMEWORK – WT/L/579 (2 AUGUST  2004) 
 PARAGRAPH 6 
 
We furthermore agree that, as an exception, participants with a binding coverage of 
non-agricultural tariff lines of less than [35] per cent would be exempt from making tariff reductions through the formula.  Inste ad, we expect them to bind [100] per cent 
of non-agricultural tariff lines at an average  level that does not exceed the overall 
average of bound tariffs for all developing countries after full implementation of 
current concessions. 
PARAGRAPH 8  
 
We agree that developing-country partici pants shall have longer implementation 
periods for tariff reductions.  In addition, th ey shall be given the following flexibility: 
(a) applying less than formula cuts to up to [10] per cent of the tariff lines 
provided that the cuts are no less than  half the formula cuts and that these 
tariff lines do not exceed [10] per cent of the total value of a Member's 
imports;  or 
(b) keeping, as an exception, tariff lines unbound, or not applying formula cuts 
for up to [5] per cent of tariff lines pr ovided they do not exceed [5] per cent of 
the total value of a Member's imports. 
PARAGRAPH 9  
 
We agree that least-developed country partic ipants shall not be required to apply the 
formula nor participate in the sectorial approach, however, as part of their contribution to this round of negotiations, they are expected  to substantially increase 
their level of binding commitments.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 9 
 
 
  III. DECISIONS 
A. COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED SESSION ON SMALL ECONOMIES  
1. Report to the General Council on Measures to Assist Small Economies in Meeting their 
Obligations under the Agreements on SPS Measures, TBT and TRIPS3 - 
WT/COMTD/SE/5 (3 October 2006) 
1. In paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration,4 Ministers established a work 
programme under the auspices of the General C ouncil to examine issues relating to the trade 
of small economies with the objective of frami ng responses to the trade-related issues 
identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading 
system, without creating a sub-category of WTO Members.   
2. On 1 March 2002, the General Council took note of a framework and procedures for 
the conduct of the Work Programme on Small Economies5 and instructed the Committee on 
Trade and Development (CTD) to conduct this programme of work in Dedicated Sessions and 
to report regularly on the progress of its work  to the General Council.  This mandate was 
reaffirmed by the 1 August 2004 Decision of the General Council.6  At the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Conference, Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to this Work Programme and 
urged Members to adopt specific measures that w ould facilitate the fuller integration of small 
economies into the multilateral trading system.7 
3. In discussions in the CTD in Dedicated Session, the proponents of small economies 
identified, as one of the trade-related issues a ffecting the fuller integration of their economies 
into the multilateral trading system, their lim ited administrative capacities to implement 
complex rules and procedures and, in partic ular, to fulfil their obligations under the 
Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade (T BT), on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(SPS) and on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).  
4. In documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/15, WT/COMTD/SE/W/16 and 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/18, the proponents suggested that they be allowed to designate regional 
bodies to assist them in the implementation of their obligations in the SPS, TBT and TRIPS 
Agreements and sought explicit approval fro m Members to do so.  The proposals underwent 
two revisions8 to take into account the concerns raised by other Members in the Dedicated 
Session and at informal and/or formal meetings of the SPS and TBT Committees and the TRIPS Council. 
 
5. Reports from the Chairpersons of these bodies were sent to the Chairperson of the 
CTD in Dedicated Session.  The proponents of small economies also clarified that it was not 
their intention to modify, amend or alter the ba lance of rights and obligations contained in the 
SPS, TBT or TRIPS Agreements and that they, as Members, remain ultimately responsible 
for adhering to the obligations they contain.  
 
                                                     
 
3 The General Council, at its meeting of 10 October 2006, agreed to the recommendations and 
understandings contained in paragraph 6 of the report. 
4 WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1. 
5 WT/L/447. 
6 WT/L/579. 
7 WT/MIN(05)/DEC, paragraph 41. 
8 The latest versions have been ci rculated as WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.2; 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.2 and WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.2. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 10  
 
  6. On the basis of the discussions that ha ve been held on this matter, the CTD in 
Dedicated Session considers that the use by sm all, vulnerable economies of regional bodies to 
provide technical support and assistance as necessary could help them implement their obligations in the areas of SPS, TBT and TRIPS, and thereby facilitate their fuller integration 
into the multilateral trading system.  Accordingly, and in pursuance of the provisions of 
paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Ministerial D eclaration, the CTD in Dedicated Session 
recommends that the General Council agrees that  small economies are allowed to use such 
regional bodies to assist them in the implemen tation of their obligations under the SPS, TBT 
and TRIPS Agreements.  It also recommends that Members and the WTO, within its competence, when providing technical and financial assistance to support small, vulnerable 
economies in fulfilling their rights and obligati ons under the agreements concerned, shall 
consider the advantages of providing that assistance  to the regional body where such exists.  It 
is understood that individual Members bene fiting from these recommendations will continue 
to be legally responsible a nd accountable for their individual notifications and other 
obligations under these Agreements.  This r ecommendation is without prejudice both to the 
identification of other specific measures in due course to facilitate the fuller integration of 
small economies into the multilateral trading sy stem and to the use of regional bodies as 
described in this report by other developing country Members.  
 
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 11 
 
 
   
B. COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES  
1. Decision of the General Council of 27 July 2007 - WT/L/691 (31 July 2007) Based on the 
Draft Decision of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of 13 July 2007 (G/SCM/120) 
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND 
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
 
Decision of 27 July 2007
 
 
The General Council, 
  Having regard  to Articles IV:1 and 2 and IX:1 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization ("WTO Agreement") and Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures  ("SCM Agreement ");   
 
 Recalling that the Members of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
("SCM Committee" or "Committee"), as directed by the Ministerial Conference
9 have granted, 
pursuant to the procedures set forth in document G/SCM/39, extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement  for the 
elimination of export subsidies, in respect of certain programmes of certain developing country 
Members;    
 
 Noting the proposals submitted by those developi ng country Members to extend the 
procedures contained in G/SCM/39;
10   
 
 Noting  the terms of paragraph 5 of this Decision;  
 
 Recognizing  the economic, financial and developmen t needs, as well as the capacity and 
administrative constraints, of those Members in  implementing their commitments pursuant to the 
SCM Agreement  in respect of the elimination of export subsidies;   
 
 On the basis of  the commitment of those Members to eliminate the export subsidies in 
question not later than 31 December 2015, with  no requests for extension beyond those foreseen 
pursuant to this Decision;     Decides  to adopt the following procedures.   
 
PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS PURSUANT 
TO ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE SCM AGREEMENT OF THE TRANSITION 
PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 27.2(b) OF THE SCM AGREEMENT 
FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS 
  The SCM Committee shall follow the proce dures set forth below in respect of the 
continuation of extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  ("SCM Article 27.4") of 
                                                     
 
9 Ministerial Decision on Im plementation-Related Issues and Concerns, (WT/MIN(01)/17), 
paragraph 10.6.   
10 See documents G/SCM/W/535 and G/SCM/W/537 and addenda.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 12  
 
  the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement  for certain programmes, identified 
in the Annex.
11  
 
1. Mechanism for continuation of extension 
 
(a) A Member that wishes to seek a continuation, for calendar year 2008, of the 
extension under SCM Article 27.4 for a progr amme listed in the Annex, shall submit 
a request to that effect to the SCM Comm ittee not later than 3 September 2007.  The 
request also shall include a reference to the WTO document containing the corresponding updating notification covering calendar year 2006, which the Member 
shall have submitted to the SCM Committee pursuant to 1(d) of G/SCM/39.
12   
(b) Not later than 26 October 2007, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to 
continue the extensions, for calendar year  2008, for programmes listed in the Annex 
in respect of which requests have been s ubmitted pursuant to 1(a) and for which the 
Committee has verified, in its annual review conducted pursuant to G/SCM/3913, that 
the transparency and standstill requireme nts under G/SCM/39 were fulfilled during 
2006.   
(c) As provided for in SCM Article 27.4, the continuation of extensions by the 
SCM Committee pursuant to these procedures shall be subject to annual reviews in the form of consultations between th e Committee and the Members receiving 
continuations of extensions.  These annual re views shall be conducted on the basis of 
annual updating notifications from the Members in question, as referred to in 2(a).  
The purpose of the annual reviews shall be to verify that the transparency and standstill requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.   
(d) During the period 2008-2012, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to 
continue the extensions pursuant to these procedures , subject to verification through 
annual reviews as provided for in 1(c) that the transparency and standstill 
requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.
14  The "last authorized period" 
referred to in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall not extend beyond 
31 December 2013, and the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last 
sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall end not later than 31 December 2015.   
(e) A Member receiving a continuation of an ex tension under these procedures shall take, 
from 1 January 2008, the necessary internal steps with a view to eliminating export 
subsidies under the programme before the end of the final two-year phase-out period 
provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4.  These steps shall include 
consultations with relevant government  bodies and organisations and any necessary 
technical and/or legal assessments.  In addition, from 1 January 2008 and in no case 
later than 31 December 2009, the Member shall notify each beneficiary under the 
programme indicating that no export subsidies within the meaning of 
                                                      
11 The programmes eligible for continuations of extensions under these procedures are programmes 
providing export subsidies in the form of full or partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under SCM Article 27.4 for calendar 
year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.   
12 At the regular meeting of the Committee in April 2007, these Members were reminded to submit 
their updating notifications by 30 June 2007.   
13 The procedures in G/SCM/39 shall cease to be effec tive upon completion of this  2007 annual review.   
14 This extension mechanism shall cease to be effec tive upon completion in 2012  of the annual review 
by the Committee to continue the extensions for calendar y ear 2013, such that there will be no basis for requests 
for extension beyond those foreseen in this Decision.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 13 
 
 
  SCM Article 3.1(a) will be granted or  maintained beyond the end of calendar 
year 2015.   
(f) A Member receiving a continuation of an  extension under these procedures shall 
provide, for transparency purposes, an action plan for eliminating export subsidies under the programme, as an integral pa rt of the annual updating notification 
submitted for the annual review  to be conducted in 2010.
15  As part of this review, the 
SCM Committee shall undertake a mid-period assessment of each programme for which it has continued an extension under these procedures.  During this mid-period 
assessment, the SCM Committee shall take st ock of the steps undertaken as of that 
point by the notifying Member pursuant to  1(e), and shall discuss the action plan 
provided by the Member.   
(g) A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures may 
request the WTO Secretariat to provide technical assistance for eliminating export subsidies under the programme.   
2. Transparency  
 
(a) The annual updating notifications shall fo llow the agreed format for subsidy 
notifications under SCM Article 25 (found in  G/SCM/6/Rev.1).  Beginning with the 
updating notifications covering calendar y ear 2008, notifying Members also shall 
provide information regarding the actions they  have taken pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).   
(b) During the annual reviews by the SCM Committee referred to in 1(c), notifying 
Members can be requested by other Me mbers to provide additional detail and 
clarification with a view to maintaining tran sparency in respect of the scope, coverage 
and intensity of benefits (the "favour ability") of the programmes in question
16 and the 
form of the subsidies provided thereunder;   and in respect of the actions taken 
pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).  Any informati on provided in response to such requests 
shall be considered part of the notified information.   
(c) A Member receiving a continuation of an  extension under these procedures shall 
ensure transparency in respect of the fi nal two-year phase-out period provided for in 
the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 by submitting updating notifications under 
paragraph 2(a), which shall be subject to annual review by the Committee.   
3. Standstill 
 
(a) Through the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in 
SCM Article 27.4, the programmes for whic h extensions are continued under these 
procedures shall not be modified so as to ma ke them more favourable than they were 
as at 1 September 2001, as specified in the notified information previously submitted 
pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.  The continuation of an expiring 
programme without modification shall not be deemed to violate standstill.   
                                                      
15 The action plan shall indicate how the Member intends to eliminate export subsidies under the 
programme not later than the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4, including information as to legisla tive changes, administrative amendments and/or other 
procedures as may be necessary, and whether any of these actions have been undertaken  or are in the process of 
being undertaken, including how the individual beneficiaries have been notified pursuant to 1(e). 
16 The scope, coverage and intensity of benefits of the programmes in question will be determined on 
the basis of the legal instruments underlying the programmes.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 14  
 
  (b) The verification of standstill in respect of  the scope, coverage and intensity of 
benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes shall be based on the notified 
information referred to in 1(c), 2(a), 2(b) and 3(a).   
4. Product graduation on the basis of export competitiveness 
 
Notwithstanding these procedures, Articles 27.5 and 27.6 shall apply in respect of export 
subsidies for which extensions are con tinued pursuant to these procedures.   
5. Members listed in Annex VII(b) which reserved rights pursuant to the procedures in 
G/SCM/39 
 
(a) This Decision does not prejudge rights of Annex VII Members. 
(b) If, during the period 2008-2015, the per capita  GNP of a Member that reserved rights 
under paragraph 6(b) of G/SCM/39
17 reaches the level provided for in Annex VII(b) 
of the SCM Agreement  such that the Member is no lo nger included in Annex VII(b), 
that Member shall be able to make use of these procedures as from the date at which 
its per capita GNP reaches that level and for the remainder of that period.  The 
effective date for the standstill requirement re ferred to in 3(a) shall be the year in 
which that Member's GNP per capita reach es the level provided for in Annex VII(b) 
such that it is no longer in cluded in Annex VII(b).   
  
 
    
 
     
                                                     
 
17 The Members that reserved rights, and the programmes in respect of which these rights were 
reserved, are identified in documents G/SCM/N/74/ BOL & Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/74/HND, G/SCM/N/74/KEN, 
and G/SCM/N/74/LKA.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 15 
 
 
  ANNEX 
  
LIST OF PROGRAMMES ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS  
UNDER THE PROCEDURES
18, AND DOCUMENT REFERENCES FOR THE  
EXTENSION DECISIONS BY THE SCM COMMITTEE  
COVERING CALENDAR YEAR 2007  
  Antigua & Barbuda  
• Fiscal Incentive Act Cap 172 (December 1975) (G/SCM/50/Add.4) 
• Free Trade and Processing Zone Act No. 12 of 1994 (G/SCM/51/Add.4) 
 
Barbados  
• Fiscal Incentive Programme (G/SCM/52/Add.4) 
• Export Allowance (G/SCM/53/Add.4) 
• Research & Development Allowance (G/SCM/54/Add.4) 
• International Business Incentives (G/SCM/55/Add.4) 
• Societies With Restricted Liability (G/SCM/56/Add.4) 
 
Belize  
• Fiscal Incentives Act (G/SCM/57/Add.4) 
• Export Processing Zone Act (G/SCM/58/Add. 4) 
• Commercial Free Zone Act (G/SCM/59/Add.4) 
• Conditional Duty Exemptions Facility under Treaty of Chaguaramas (G/SCM/60/Add.4) 
 
Costa Rica  
• Free Zone Regime (G/SCM/61/Add.4) 
• Inward Processing Regime (G/SCM/62/Add.4) 
 
Dominica  
• Fiscal Incentives Programme (G/SCM/63/Add.4) 
                                                     
 
18 Programmes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under 
SCM Article 27.4 for calendar year 2007 pursuant to th e procedures in G/SCM/39.  It is recalled that the 
eligibility criteria in G/SCM/39 on the basis of which the original extension decisions pursuant to those 
procedures (for calendar year 2003) were taken for the listed programmes were as follows (footnotes omitted):   
 
"Programmes eligible for extension pursuant to these procedures, and for which Members shall 
therefore grant extensions for calendar year 2003 [...], are expor t subsidy programmes (i) in the form of full or 
partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes, (ii) which were in existence not later than 1 September 
2001, and (iii) which are provided by developing country Members (iv) whose share of world merchandise 
export trade was not greater than 0.10 per cent, (v) whose total Gross National Income ("GNI") for the year 
2000 as published by the World Bank was at or below US$20 billion, (vi) and who are otherwise eligible to 
request an extension pursuant to Article 27.4, and (vii) in respect of which these procedures are followed."   
 It is further recalled that, in respect of the above eligibility criteria, G/SCM/39 also provided that:   
 
"The criteria set forth in these procedures are solely  and strictly for the purpose of determining whether 
Members are eligible to invoke these procedures.  Members of the Committee agree that these criteria have no 
precedential value or relevance, direct or indirect, for any other purpose."   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 16  
 
  Dominican Republic  
• Law No. 8-90 to "Promote the Establishment of New Free Zones and Expand Existing Ones"  
(G/SCM/64/Add.4) 
 
El Salvador  
• Export Processing Zones and Marketing Act, as amended (G/SCM/65/Add.4) 
 
Fiji 
• Short-Term Export Profit Deduction (G/SCM/66/Add.4) 
• Export Processing Factories/Export Processing Zones Scheme (G/SCM/67/Add.4) 
• The Income Tax Act (Film Making and Audio Visual Incentive Amendment Decree 2000) 
(G/SCM/68/Add.4) 
 
Grenada  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 41 of 1974 (G/SCM/69/Add.4) 
• Statutory Rules and Orders No. 37 of 1999 (G/SCM/70/Add.4) 
• Qualified Enterprises Act No. 18 of 1978 (G/SCM/71/Add.4) 
 
Guatemala  
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duti es and Other Import Taxes for Companies 
under Special Customs Regimes (G/SCM/72/Add.4) 
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production 
Process Relating to Activities of Managers and Users of Free Zones (G/SCM/73/Add.4) 
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production 
Process of Commercial and Industrial Enterprises Operating in the Industrial and Free Trade 
Zone (G/SCM/74/Add.4) 
 
Jamaica  
• Export Industry Encouragement Act (G/SCM/75/Add.4) 
• Jamaica Export Free Zone Act (G/SCM/76/Add.4) 
• Foreign Sales Corporation Act (G/SCM/77/Add.4) 
• Industrial Incentives (Factory Construction) Act (G/SCM/78/Add.4) 
 
Jordan  
• Partial or Total Exemption from Income Tax of Profits Generated from Exports under Law 
No. 57 of 1985, as amended (G/SCM/79/Add.4) 
 
Mauritius  
• Export Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/80/Add.4) 
• Pioneer Status Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/81/Add.4) 
• Export Promotion (G/SCM/82/Add.4) 
• Freeport Scheme (G/SCM/83/Add.4) 
 
Panama
 
• Official Industry Register (G/SCM/84/Add.4 
• Export Processing Zones (G/SCM/85/Add.4) 
 
Papua New Guinea  
• Section 45 of the Income Tax (G/SCM/86/Add.4) 
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 17 
 
 
  St. Kitts and Nevis  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 17 of 1974 (G/SCM/90/Add.4) 
 
St. Lucia  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 15 of 1974 (G/SCM/87/Add.4) 
• Free Zone Act, No. 10 of 1999 (G/SCM/88/Add.4) 
• Micro and Small Scale Business Enterprises Ac t, No. 19 of 1998 (G/SCM/89/Add.4) 
 
St. Vincent & Grenadines  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 5 of 19 82, as amended (G/SCM/91/Add.4) 
 
Uruguay  
• Automotive Industry Export Promotion Regime  (G/SCM/92/Add.4) 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 18  
 
  IV. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE - SPECIAL SESSION 
A. 
CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT  
1. Revised Draft Modalities for Agricultu re - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 (6 December 2008) 
II. MARKET ACCESS 
A. T IERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS  
61. Developed country Members  shall reduce their final bound tariffs  in equal annual 
instalments over five years in accordan ce with the following tiered formula: 
(a) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 0 and less 
than or equal to 20 per cent, the reduction shall be 50 per cent; 
(b) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is great er than 20 per cent 
and less than or equal to 50 per cen t, the reduction shall be 57 per cent; 
(c) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is great er than 50 per cent 
and less than or equal to 75 per cent,  the reduction shall be 64 per cent;  and 
(d) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
75 per cent, the reduction shall be 70 per cent. 
63. Developing country Members other than tho se specified in paragraph 65 below shall 
reduce their final bound tariffs in eleven equal annual instalments over ten years in 
accordance with the following tiered formula: 
(a) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 0 and 
less than or equal to 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(a) above; 
(b) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
30 per cent and less than or equal to 80 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of 
the cut for developed country Memb ers in paragraph 61(b) above; 
(c) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
80 per cent and less than or equal to 1 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 
of the cut for developed country Memb ers in paragraph 61(c) above;  and 
(d) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(d) above. 
65. Those small, vulnerable economies
19, including those among them which are ceiling 
binding and homogenously low binding countries, which choose to exercise the option set 
                                                      
19 The Members concerned are those that meet the cr iteria set out in paragraph 151 and are listed in 
Annex I.  As is made clear in the Agreed Framewor k, Small vulnerable economies (SVEs) are not meant to 
create any sub -category of Members.  Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be 
deemed to be eligible for this treatment, should they choose to avail themselves of it, despite not being members of the SVE Group per se  given that this treatment could be deemed  to be broadly comparably appropriate:  
Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 19 
 
 
  forth in paragraph 130 below shall be entitled to moderate the cuts specified in paragraph 63 
above by a further 10 ad valorem  percentage points in each band. 
D. S PECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT  
Special Products 
 
129. Developing country Members shall be en titled to self-designate Special Products 
guided by indicators20 based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural 
development.  There shall be 12 per cent of tariff lines available for self-designation as Special Products.  Up to 5 per cent of lines may have no cut.  The overall average cut shall, in 
any case, be 11 percent.
* 
*  A number of developing country Members  have expressed reservations concerning the numbers 
specified in this paragraph, noting also that this may be affected by what is decided in other areas of 
the text. 
130. In the case of small vulnerable economies, including those among them which are 
ceiling binding and homogenously low binding countries, they may, if they choose to do so, 
apply the moderated tariff tiered formula for SV Es provided for in paragraph 65 above plus 
the Special Product entitlement outlined above.  A lternatively, they may chose not to apply 
the tiered formula but simply meet an overa ll average cut of 24 per cent through having in 
effect opted to designate as many tariff lines as they choose as Special Products.  The tariff 
lines so chosen need not be subject to any mini mum tariff cut and need not be guided by the 
indicators.  
Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) 
 
144. [In the case of SVE’s referred to in foot note 11 to these modalities, they may apply 
the maximum remedy provided for above even if this would otherwise entail breach of a 
pre-Doha bound tariff, provided that the ma ximum increase over a pre-Doha bound tariff does 
not exceed 20 ad valorem  percentage points or 20 per cent of the current bound tariff, 
whichever is higher, for up to a maximum of (10-15) per cent of tariff lines in any given 
period.  This would be provided that all othe r relevant conditions for application of the 
measure have been met.  
145. For developing country Members other than  those referred to in the preceding 
paragraph, they may apply the maximum reme dy provided for above even if this would 
otherwise entail breach of a pre-Doha bound ta riff provided that (a) the maximum increase 
over the pre-Doha bound tariffs would be no more than 15 ad valorem  percentage points or 15 
per cent of the current bound tariff, whichever is the higher; (b) the maximum number of 
products for which this provision would be invoked would be no more than 2-621 in any given 
period; and (c) this would not be permissible for two consecutive periods. All other provisions 
would be applicable.]  
                                                                                                                                                                     
meet the criteria in paragraph 147) .  Additionally, Bolivia shall have access, exceptionally, to treatment 
equivalent to that provided for in paragraph 142.  As an exception, Suriname shall rebind its agricultural tariffs 
on a line by line basis at the level of the average bound tariff of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, 
Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevi s, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and 
Trinidad and Tobago resulting from these modalities. 
20 See Annex F. 
21 For the purposes of this provision a "product" is  identifiable at the 6-digit level of the Harmonized 
System (HS) nomenclature, but with the understanding that this can entail a maximum of [4 - 8] tariff lines 
per product  below that 6-digit level. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 20  
 
   
G. 
SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
157. For the purposes of this Agreement, this  term applies to Members with economies 
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more 
than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.  
158. Developed country Members a nd developing country Members in a position to do so 
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to 
Members with small, vulnerable economies. 
159. More specific provisions are to be found in relevant sections of this document. 
ANNEX I 
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
 
1. The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous 
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004 
(TN/MA/S/18).  Individual Members' data were  extracted from the United Nations Comtrade 
database on 6 June 2007.  World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports 
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006.  This time period has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustme nt has been applied to world exports by 
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall results
22.  The country averages are calculated on th e basis of the years for which data are 
available.  
2. A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one whose average share for the period 
1999-2004 (a) of world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent and (c) of world agricultural trade does not 
exceed 0.40 per cent. 
3. The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as 
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those Members for which no data are available. 
                                                     
 
22 Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of 
reporters in Comtrade.  World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to 
the WTO's world exports by commodity group and ali gning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total 
imports  Intra-trade of the 25 EC member St ates was then subtracted from the totals.  
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4
 Page 21 Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Worlda 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
Albania 0.019 0.008 0.029 0.050 0.008 0.087 0.017 0.008 0.026 
Antigua and Barbuda 0.004 0.001 0.007 0.011 0.000 0.020 0.004 0.001 0.006 
Armenia 0.015 0.010 0.019 0.040 0.018 0.060 0.013 0.010 0.016 
Barbados 0.013 0.005 0.020 0.037 0.022 0.050 0.011 0.004 0.019 
Belize 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.023 0.029 0.017 0.004 0.001 0.007 
Bolivia 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.102 0.143 0.065 0.028 0.025 0.030 
Botswana 0.057 0.061 0.053 0.075 0.030 0.116 0.056 0.065 0.048 
Brunei Darussalam 0.050 0.078 0.025 0.029 0.000 0.056 0.053 0.086 0.023 
Cameroon 0.036 0.038 0.035 0.112 0.140 0.087 0.032 0.032 0.032 
Cuba 0.063 0.034 0.089 0.240 0.223 0.256 0.052 0.022 0.080 
Dominica 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.005 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.002 
Dominican Rep. 0.068 0.018 0.113 0.154 0.115 0.189 0.063 0.011 0.111 
Ecuador 0.110 0.112 0.108 0.326 0.515 0.154 0.098 0.087 0.107 
El Salvador 0.051 0.026 0.075 0.173 0.136 0.206 0.044 0.018 0.068 
Fiji 0.014 0.010 0.018 0.047 0.055 0.040 0.012 0.007 0.017 
FYR Macedonia 0.033 0.026 0.039 0.076 0.069 0.083 0.027 0.024 0.030 
Gabon 0.031 0.046 0.017 0.026 0.004 0.046 0.032 0.051 0.015 
Georgia 0.014 0.009 0.020 0.052 0.044 0.060 0.012 0.006 0.018 
Ghana 0.057 0.044 0.067 0.221 0.302 0.144 0.047 0.027 0.063 
Grenada 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.012 0.002 0.001 0.004 
Guatemala 0.086 0.053 0.116 0.319 0.416 0.231 0.072 0.030 0.110 
Guyana 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.037 0.052 0.024 0.008 0.007 0.010 
Honduras 0.041 0.026 0.056 0.190 0.223 0.160 0.032 0.013 0.049 
Jamaica 0.044 0.024 0.063 0.114 0.091 0.136 0.040 0.020 0.059 
Jordan 0.079 0.052 0.104 0.198 0.120 0.269 0.071 0.049 0.092 
Kenya 0.052 0.037 0.065 0.215 0.314 0.126 0.041 0.019 0.062  
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 22  Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Kyrgyzstan 0.011 0.010 0.012 0.029 0.032 0.026 0.010 0.009 0.011 
Macao, China 0.049 0.049 0.048 0.055 0.013 0.093 0.050 0.053 0.046 
Mauritius 0.037 0.032 0.041 0.096 0.102 0.090 0.034 0.028 0.038 
Moldova 0.018 0.013 0.022 0.089 0.132 0.051 0.013 0.006 0.021 
Mongolia 0.013 0.011 0.014 0.025 0.017 0.033 0.012 0.011 0.013 
Namibia 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.072 0.073 0.070 0.028 0.028 0.027 
Nicaragua 0.023 0.012 0.034 0.102 0.129 0.079 0.018 0.004 0.031 
Panama 0.038 0.016 0.059 0.105 0.091 0.114 0.035 0.011 0.056 
Papua New Guinea 0.032 0.042 0.023 0.070 0.086 0.056 0.030 0.040 0.022 
Paraguay 0.032 0.022 0.042 0.173 0.280 0.077 0.023 0.005 0.040 
Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.003 
Saint Lucia 0.004 0.001 0.006 0.016 0.009 0.022 0.003 0.001 0.005 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.011 0.009 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.003 
Sri Lanka 0.102 0.092 0.112 0.249 0.284 0.217 0.095 0.081 0.107 
Suriname 0.009 0.009 0.011 0.017 0.007 0.027 0.009 0.009 0.010 
Swaziland 0.019 0.018 0.019 0.068 0.082 0.056 0.015 0.014 0.016 
Trinidad and Tobago 0.086 0.102 0.071 0.086 0.072 0.098 0.088 0.107 0.071 
Uruguay 0.047 0.044 0.050 0.209 0.333 0.096 0.037 0.025 0.048 
Zimbabwe 0.037 0.037 0.039 0.151 0.280 0.067 0.030 0.021 0.037 
 
 a  Excludes intra-EC trade (25 member  States) and significant re-exports. 
Source : All data are from the United Nations Comtrade databa se except for world totals, which are WTO estimates.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 23 
 
 
  B. HISTORIC EVOLUTION  
1. Overview of Small Economies' Positions on the Agriculture Negotiations – JOB(05)/161 
(27 July 2005) 
4. Taking into account documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/12 and 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/13/Rev.1, the small, vulnera ble economies would like to highlight the 
following fundamental considerations: 
 
(a) The agricultural sector in small, vulne rable economies plays a key role in the 
attainment of their socio-economic deve lopment goals, in particular with 
respect to food security, rural development, exports and employment.  The 
volatility of international prices for pr oducts exported by small, vulnerable 
economies constitutes an important factor  of high vulnerability for some 
small, vulnerable economies.  In this  context, it is important for small 
economies that these issues be addressed  satisfactorily in the agriculture 
negotiations; 
(b) Small, vulnerable economies have an in significant level of participation in 
the multilateral trading system and a minimal share of total world trade.  Furthermore, these economies are constrained by low levels of competitiveness.  Issues related to market access for small economies' 
products should be addressed satisfactorily so that these economies can participate meaningfully in the multilate ral trading system in accordance with 
their level of development; 
(c) Small, vulnerable economie s have critical concerns in the market access 
pillar of the agriculture negotiations , including special and differential 
treatment and flexibilities and economic development broadly.  For most 
small economies, tariffs are the only tool at their disposal to protect their 
agricultural sectors.  It is therefore crucial that the tariff reduction formula be 
flexible enough to accommodate the con cerns of small vulnerable economies; 
(d) Bearing in mind the key contribution that agriculture makes to the food 
security and rural development of small, vulnerable economies, these countries consider that the provisions of Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) are important for the development of their 
agricultural sectors.  Accordingly, Sp ecial Products shall be exempted from 
tariff reductions and from any commitment s on TRQs.  Special Products shall 
also have access to the SSM;   
(e) The issue of maintenance of current de  minimis support levels for developing 
countries is of major importance to small, vulnerable economies, especially 
since they do not have access to the aggregate measure of support (AMS).  
We wish to emphasize that there is no justification for the reduction of 
de minimis support by developing countries;  
(f) The concerns of small, vulnerable economies shall be taken into account in 
all the provisions of special and differential treatment which are provided in the Doha mandate.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 24  
 
  2. Proposal by the Small, Vulnerable Econom ies on Market Access in Agriculture – 
TN/AG/GEN/11 (11 November 2005) 
Proponents
:  Barbados, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Re public, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, P apua New Guinea, Par aguay and Trinidad and 
Tobago. 
 
 8. Small, vulnerable economies (SVEs), with the exception of LDCs, whose average 
share of world merchandise exports over th e period 1995-2004 do not exceed 0.10 per cent, 
will make a contribution to the reform proces s in agriculture according to the following 
provisions:  
 
• Small, vulnerable economies will undertake linear cuts not exceeding 15 per cent, 
with a minimum of 10 per cent per tariff line, from the bound rate.  No further commitments will be expected from the small, vulnerable economies on the basis of modalities that may be agreed with respect to other elements under the market access 
pillar. 
• No tariff capping shall apply to the small, vulnerable economies. 
• Modalities shall provide for substantial impr ovement in market access for products of 
export interest to small, vulnerable economies. 
• Small, vulnerable economies will designate  Special Products based on their food 
security, livelihood security and rural development needs. 
• Special Products of small, vulnerable ec onomies will be exempted from tariff 
reductions and tariff rate quota commitments. 
• All agricultural tariff lines will be eligib le for the Special Safeguard Mechanism 
(SSM).  SPs of small, vulnerable economi es will have automatic access to the SSM. 
• The small, vulnerable economies insist that the SSM shall contemplate price and 
volume-based triggers.  Remedy measures shoul d be effective and flexible to respond 
to the needs of the small, vulnerable economies.  
 
3. Report by the Chairman to the TNC – TN/AG/21 (28 November 2005), also Annex A of 
the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration  
26. In the case of small and vulnerable econom ies, a concrete proposal has been made 
recently.  It has not yet been subject to consultation. 
4. Chairman's Reference Paper on SVEs – Room Document (4 May 2006) 
 3. The criteria for defining small, vulnerable economies and possible modalities 
available to them, or from which they might benefit, do not apply only to the agriculture negotiations.  This note, however, can only a ddress the agriculture specific elements and is 
without prejudice to proposals and discussions in other negotiating bodies.  However, some 
elements of these other proposals and discussions may offer some clarification on specific 
issues relating to SVEs, such as the criteria that might be relevant for defining a Member as a having a "small, vulnerable economy". 
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 25 
 
 
   Proposed modalities for market access 
 
 4. The negotiations have benefited from a specific proposal23 in the market access area 
that outlines possible provisions the SVEs propose should apply to them.  These provisions could be summarised as: 
 
• Tariff reduction formula :  linear cuts not exceeding 15 per cent, with a minimum of 
10 per cent per tariff line and no tariff cap; 
• Special Safeguard Mechanism  (SSM):  automatic access for all agricultural tariff 
lines; 
• Special Products :  self-designation based on food security, livelihood security and 
rural development needs;  exemption fr om tariff reductions and tariff rate quota 
commitments;  and 
• Offensive interests :  Substantial improvement in market access for products of export 
interest. 
 Issues to be addressed 
7. In view of the level of uncertainty su rrounding the distinct elements of the general 
provisions for market access and related special and differential treatment, a focused response 
to the specific proposals made by the SVEs remain s elusive.  However, if there are to be any 
provisions for SVEs, they will have to be part of the modalities.  Although some SVEs 
Members have supported the ACP comprehensive proposal – notably as regards the proposed tariff cuts for developing countries, which they see as a good basis for accommodating their concerns – there has been little convergence among Members regarding the core tariff reduction formula, Sensitive Products and the sp ecial and differential treatment provisions (of 
which, Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism are key elements). 
8. It is encouraging to note, however, that practically all of the individual elements 
covered by the SVE proposal have already been the subject of intensive discussions in various 
formats under the Special Session of the Committe e on Agriculture.  Furthermore, each of 
these topics is being addressed in the various Chairman's Reference Papers which are being prepared or revised.  The direct involvement of SV Es at this stage is crucial in order to ensure 
that their specific views on the various market access parameters, as well as on meaningful 
special and differential treatment, are adequate ly incorporated.  They, and other Members, 
will also need to assess what additional provisions, if any, may be needed in addition to those 
available under special and differential treatment. 
9. Furthermore, market access is not entirely de-linked from the other two pillars of 
negotiations.  As noted by SVEs themselves,  market access conditions to international 
markets will be effectively improved only if trade-distorting measures affecting agricultural 
trade are also corrected and addressed.  To a large extent, through the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration and in the recent negotiations, it would appear th at the political will and support 
exists already for some improvements:  the final date for the elimination of all forms of export 
subsidies has been agreed;  and there h as been some convergence on reductions in 
trade-distorting domestic support.  These topics ar e definitely on the agenda for reform and I 
have addressed some of them through earlier Reference Papers. 
                                                     
 
23 See Attachment 1 to this reference paper;   see also JOB(05)/161 (27 July 2005). WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 26  
 
  10. All these elements must be brought together in the right way, i.e. in a horizontal (no 
sub-category of WTO Members), inclusive,  transparent and participatory process. 
5. Contribution by the SVEs on the Chairman's  Reference Paper on SVEs – JOB(06)/164 
(31 May 2006) 
Criteria for defining SVEs 
 
4. In paragraph 3 of the reference paper, th e Chairman notes that the criteria to define 
SVEs are being discussed in other negotiating bodi es.  It is worth noting that the SVEs have 
recently presented a submission in the Negotia ting Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access 
(NAMA
24) proposing that countries whose average share for the period 1999-2004 (a) of 
world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does 
not exceed 0.10 per cent and (c) of world ag ricultural trade does not exceed 0.40 per cent 
should be identified as SVEs. 
 
5. The SVEs would wish to highlight that the vulnerability that characterizes them 
affects their trade performance in the non-agricultu ral and agricultural sectors.  In this sense, 
the same criteria should prevail in both negotia ting areas and we fully endorse the use of the 
criteria submitted in the NAMA Negotiating Group for the agriculture negotiations.  
 What specific provisions should be envisaged ? 
 
8. The level of ambition, which the SVEs are seeking is spelt out in paragraph 8 of 
TN/AG/GEN/11.  In this sense, given the cu rrent stage of the agriculture negotiations, 
provisions applicable to SVEs should be based on the following principles: 
 
• SVEs will contribute less than other devel oping countries in terms of tariff reduction. 
• SPs designated by SVEs should be exem pted from tariff reduction, capping, 
tariff-quota commitments.  They will also have  the right to have recourse to a Special 
Safeguard Mechanism based on impor t quantity and price triggers. 
• Modalities shall provide for substantial impr ovement in market access for products of 
export interest to SVEs. 
6. Chairman's Revised Consolidated Reference  Paper on Possible Modalities on Market 
Access – (9 June 2006) 
 [SMALL AND VULNERABLE ECONOMIES]  38. Members with economies defined as small,  vulnerable in [ ] may reduce bound duties 
by [ ] less than those that would otherwise ha ve been required under paragraph 4 above.  Any 
product designated as a Special Product under para graphs 16 to 19 above by a Member with a 
small, vulnerable economy shall not be requi red to [undertake reductions in bound duties,] 
[or] [increase bound tariff quotas] [o r] [be subject to a tariff cap.] 
 39. [Members shall provide enhanced impr ovements in market access for products of 
export interest to Members with  small, vulnerable economies.] 
                                                     
 
24 Circulated as a room document on 10 May 2006.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 27 
 
 
  7. Revised Consolidated Reference Paper on Modalities on Market Access – Contribution 
on the Treatment of SVEs – JOB(06)/196 (19 June 2006) 
 I. SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
  38. Countries whose average share for the period 1999-2004 (a) of world merchandise 
trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 
0.10 per cent and (c) of world agricultural tr ade does not exceed 0.40 per cent shall reduce 
bound duties by [X
25] percentage points less than would otherwise have been required under 
paragraph 4 above. 
39. In accordance with the Hong Kong Mi nisterial Declaration and the July 2004 
Decision, SVEs will have the right to self-designate  at least [   ] per cent of tariff lines as SPs 
based on criteria of food security, livelihood securi ty and rural development needs.  SVEs 
shall not be required to undertake reductions  in bound duties, increase bound tariff quotas nor 
be subject to a tariff cap with  regards to these tariff lines. 
40. Members shall provide enhanced improve ments in market access for products of 
export interest to SVEs. 
8. Draft Possible Modalities on Agriculture – TN/AG/W/3 (12 July 2006)  
  [ I .  S MALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
 
47. Members with economies that, in the period [1999] to [2004], had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no more than [0.16] per cent, (b) world trade 
in non-agricultural products of no more than [0.10] per cent and (c) world trade in 
agricultural products of no more than [0. 40] per cent shall have the right to reduce 
bound duties by [ ] less than those that would otherwise have been required under paragraph 4 above.   
48. Any Member meeting the criteria in paragraph 47 shall have the right to 
self-designate at least [ ] per cent of tariff lines as Special Products based on criteria 
of food security, livelihood security and ru ral development needs.  Such Members 
shall not be required to undertake reducti ons in bound duties, increase bound tariff 
quotas or be subject to a tariff cap] on these products.] 
49. [Developed country] Members shall provide enhanced improvements in 
market access for products of export inter est to Members with small, vulnerable 
economies.] 
9. Submission on the Treatment of Small Vu lnerable Economies (SVEs) – JOB(07)/47 
(11 April 2007) 
6. In view of their specific situation, SV Es need enhanced Special and Differential 
Treatment (SDT).  This paper builds upon two elements of the previous SVEs submissions 
on:  (a) tariff reduction through the tiered fo rmula;  and (b) Special Products (SPs). 
                                                     
 
25 This figure will be determined in the light of emerging convergence in respect of the level of 
ambition of the overall market access package. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 28  
 
  7. New commitments undertaken by SVEs sha ll reflect consideration of their specific 
situation and their development needs.  Fo r the reasons enumerated above, SVEs shall 
contribute less than other developing countries in terms of tariff reduction. 
8. An examination of the tariff schedules and tariff profile of SVE Members will reveal 
that tariff reduction commitments based on a tiered formula will require disproportionate 
efforts from SVEs because: 
• Some have homogeneous low bindings.  Reduction commitments are likely to 
affect those products that are highly important for their development needs.  Applying the formula cuts is likely to re duce the applied rates of such products. 
• Some have ceiling bindings and/or a high percentage of their tariff lines may fall 
in the highest tiers of the tiered formul a.  This would require them to undertake 
greater efforts in terms of average tari ff reduction and tariff reduction per tariff 
line when compared with the average reduction for developing countries used 
during the Uruguay Round (24 per cent) and assessed through the lens of the 
proportionality principle.  
 
9. SPs self-designated by SVEs shall be ex empted from tariff reduction, tariff capping 
and tariff-quota commitments.  Provisions on SPs  are important for the development of the 
agricultural sectors in SVEs, bearing in mind th e key contribution that agriculture makes to 
their food security, livelihood security and rural development. 
10. SVEs fully support the view that SPs s hould be selected and designated based on the 
food and livelihood security and rural developmen t needs of developing countries, guided by 
the illustrative list of indicators submitted by  the G-33.  The right to self-designate any 
product as SP shall not be questioned at any stage of the negotiating processes, including the 
verification of the schedules of members. 
11. SVEs are of the view that the concessi ons made in the framework of free trade 
agreements (FTAs) are part of a very specific and particular balance between the rights and obligations of the Members involved in the FTA.  There shall be no requirement that 
multilateral WTO rights and  obligations, resu lting from the Doha negotiations, including the 
self-designation of SPs, be contingent on such FTA concessions. 
12. SVEs also believe that SPs shall cover at  least 20 per cent of the total number of tariff 
lines of a particular Member and that this lim ited percentage of tariff lines should be treated 
according to the following three layers of commitments: 
• At least 50 per cent of these tariff lines will be exempted from tariff reductions.  
For those SVEs characterized by special circumstances
26, an additional 
15 per cent of the tariff lines designated as Special Products will not be subject to any tariff reduction commitment; 
• 25 per cent of tariff lines will be subject to a reduction of 5 per cent;  and 
• The remaining tariff lines, other than tho se categorized in the two sub-paragraphs 
above, will be subject to a reduction of not more than 10 per cent. 
                                                     
 
26 Special circumstances include situ ations where a developing country Member:  (a) had bound at least 
25 per cent of its total tariff lines at a maximum import duty of 80 per cent at the start of the implementation period;  (b) had undertaken ceiling binding commitments under the Uruguay Round;  (c) has predominantly low 
income or resource poor producers;  or (d) has any ot her structural difficulties in its agriculture sector.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 29 
 
 
  13. An outcome that reflects the aspirations of SVEs would contribute to enhancing their 
participation in the multilateral trading syst em, in accordance with their development, 
economic, financial and trade needs.  These enhanced flexibilities will not have any significant impact on world markets, taking into  account the small size of their markets, the 
fact that many of these countries are already highly open and are net food-importing 
countries. 
10. Communication from the Chairman of the Co mmittee on Agriculture, Special Session - 
Second Instalment (25 May 2007) 
17. From the mandate it is clear that the m odalities should address the fuller integration 
of small, vulnerable economies into the multila teral trading system but without creating a 
sub-category of Members.  In the proposals made by the group of small, vulnerable 
economies, three distinct elements have been raised: the definition of what is a small, 
vulnerable economy; how their concerns re lating to improving market access may be 
addressed; and how their export interests may be addressed.   
18. In order to define what is a small, vulne rable economy, there is a proposal from the 
group which states that they are Members w ith economies that, in the period 1999 to 2004, 
had an average share of world merchandise trade of 0.16 per cent or less and world trade in 
non agricultural products of 0.1 per cent or l ess and world trade in agricultural products of 
0.4 per cent or less.  In the absence of any contra ry view I will take that this definition is 
acceptable.  I would also assume that in submitting their draft Schedules any Member that claims that its economy meets these criteria  would provide verifiable supporting data. 
19. The group of small, vulnerable economies proposed that their export interests should 
be addressed by a modality that would re quire all Members to provide enhanced 
improvements in market access for products of ex port interest to SVEs.  I do not recall any 
delegation disagreeing with this proposal.   
20. While the proposal made by the SVE group is independent of proposals on Special 
Products generally, I would note that it does follow ve ry closely that of the G-33.  However, at 
this stage there is no consensus among Member s on the designation and treatment of Special 
Products.  Therefore, I feel that, at this stag e, there is little I can usefully add beyond noting 
that, as regards my own comments on special products, I would have envisaged that some form of additional flexibility – whether in te rms of number and/or treatment – under Special 
Products – reflecting the potentiality of dispropor tionate impact – would appear to have been 
the most appropriate means for addressing the sp ecific import concerns of small, vulnerable 
economies. 
11. Revised Draft Modalities for Agricu lture - TN/AG/W/4 (1 August 2007) 
II. MARKET ACCESS 
A. T
IERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS  
50. Developing country Members other than t hose specified in paragraph 52 below shall 
reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual instalments over eight years in accordance with the following tiered formula: 
(a) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 0 and 
less than or equal to 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 49(a)  above; WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 30  
 
  (b) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
30 per cent and less than or equal to 80 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of 
the cut for developed country Memb ers in paragraph 49(b) above; 
(c) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
80 per cent and less than or equal to 1 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 
of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 49(c)  above;  and 
(d) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 49(d)  above. 
52. Small and vulnerable economies
27 will, in respect of each tier specified above for 
developing countries, be entitled to moderate  the two-thirds cut by a further [10] ad valorem  
points in each band.  Should strict application of this formula result in an overall average cut 
higher than [24] per cent, the Member concerne d would be entitled to apply lesser reductions 
at its discretion, to keep w ithin such an average level. 
53. Where a small and vulnerable Member (or a Member in the supplementary list 
specified in footnote below) has ceiling bindings or homogeneous low bindings and 
application of the approach specified above would still place an unsustainable adjustment 
burden upon it, the Member concerned shall not  be required to make a tiered reduction but 
would be subject only to the overall average reduction. 
D. S PECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT  
Special Products 
 94. Fourth, we discard any view that we will end up with a rigidly applicable, one-
size-fits-all approach as regards selection, give n the inherent country-specific nature of a 
Special Product provision under the Framework and the Hong Kong Agreement.  One option 
is, of course, that we have no a priori  number whatsoever and accept whatever derives from 
the indicators when agreed.  Another option is  to adopt a more tailored approach, along 
something like the following broad lines: 
(c) for those developing country Members in cluding SVEs and others referred to in 
footnote, their threshold could be set at  a proportionately higher level.  There 
would be no ceiling for those Members above that threshold. 
H. 
SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
134. For the purposes of this Agreement, th is term applies to Members with economies 
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.  
                                                     
 
27 The Members concerned are those that meet the criteria set out in paragraph IV.A.1.147 and are 
listed in Annex C.  As is made clear in the Framew ork, SVEs are not meant to  create any new category of 
Members.  Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be deemed to be eligible for this 
treatment, should they choose to avail themselves of  it, despite not being Members of the SVE group of 
countries per se  given that this treatment could be deemed to be broadly comparably appropriate:  Côte d'Ivoire 
and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they meet the criteria in paragraph 137). 
These latter Members would also have freedom to opt for varying bands for the tiers.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 31 
 
 
  135. Developed country Member s and developing country Members in a position to do so 
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to 
Members with small, vulnerable economies. 
136. More specific provisions are to be foun d in relevant sections of this document. 
ANNEX C 
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
 
1. The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous 
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004 (TN/MA/S/18).  Individual Members' data were  extracted from the United Nations Comtrade 
database on 6 June 2007.  World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports 
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006.  This time period has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustme nt has been applied to world exports by 
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall results
28.  The country averages are calculated on th e basis of the years for which data are 
available.  
4. A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one whose average share for the period 
1999-2004 (a) of world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent and (c) of world agricultural trade does not 
exceed 0.40 per cent. 
5. The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as 
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those 
Members for which no data are available. 
                                                     
 
28 Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of 
reporters in Comtrade.  World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to 
the WTO's world exports by commodity group and ali gning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total 
imports  Intra-trade of the 25 member  States of the European Communities was then subtracted from the totals.  
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 32  Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Worlda 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
Albania 0.019 0.008 0.029 0.050 0.008 0.087 0.017 0.008 0.026 
Antigua and Barbuda 0.004 0.001 0.007 0.011 0.000 0.020 0.004 0.001 0.006 
Armenia 0.015 0.010 0.019 0.040 0.018 0.060 0.013 0.010 0.016 
Barbados 0.013 0.005 0.020 0.037 0.022 0.050 0.011 0.004 0.019 
Belize 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.023 0.029 0.017 0.004 0.001 0.007 
Bolivia 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.102 0.143 0.065 0.028 0.025 0.030 
Botswana 0.057 0.061 0.053 0.075 0.030 0.116 0.056 0.065 0.048 
Brunei Darussalam 0.050 0.078 0.025 0.029 0.000 0.056 0.053 0.086 0.023 
Cameroon 0.036 0.038 0.035 0.112 0.140 0.087 0.032 0.032 0.032 
Cuba 0.063 0.034 0.089 0.240 0.223 0.256 0.052 0.022 0.080 
Dominica 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.005 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.002 
Dominican Rep. 0.068 0.018 0.113 0.154 0.115 0.189 0.063 0.011 0.111 
Ecuador 0.110 0.112 0.108 0.326 0.515 0.154 0.098 0.087 0.107 
El Salvador 0.051 0.026 0.075 0.173 0.136 0.206 0.044 0.018 0.068 
Fiji 0.014 0.010 0.018 0.047 0.055 0.040 0.012 0.007 0.017 
FYR Macedonia 0.033 0.026 0.039 0.076 0.069 0.083 0.027 0.024 0.030 
Gabon 0.031 0.046 0.017 0.026 0.004 0.046 0.032 0.051 0.015 
Georgia 0.014 0.009 0.020 0.052 0.044 0.060 0.012 0.006 0.018 
Ghana 0.057 0.044 0.067 0.221 0.302 0.144 0.047 0.027 0.063 
Grenada 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.012 0.002 0.001 0.004 
Guatemala 0.086 0.053 0.116 0.319 0.416 0.231 0.072 0.030 0.110 
Guyana 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.037 0.052 0.024 0.008 0.007 0.010 
Honduras 0.041 0.026 0.056 0.190 0.223 0.160 0.032 0.013 0.049 
Jamaica 0.044 0.024 0.063 0.114 0.091 0.136 0.040 0.020 0.059 
Jordan 0.079 0.052 0.104 0.198 0.120 0.269 0.071 0.049 0.092 
Kenya 0.052 0.037 0.065 0.215 0.314 0.126 0.041 0.019 0.062 
Kyrgyzstan 0.011 0.010 0.012 0.029 0.032 0.026 0.010 0.009 0.011 
Macao, China 0.049 0.049 0.048 0.055 0.013 0.093 0.050 0.053 0.046  
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4
 Page 33 Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Mauritius 0.037 0.032 0.041 0.096 0.102 0.090 0.034 0.028 0.038 
Moldova 0.018 0.013 0.022 0.089 0.132 0.051 0.013 0.006 0.021 
Mongolia 0.013 0.011 0.014 0.025 0.017 0.033 0.012 0.011 0.013 
Namibia 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.072 0.073 0.070 0.028 0.028 0.027 
Nicaragua 0.023 0.012 0.034 0.102 0.129 0.079 0.018 0.004 0.031 
Panama 0.038 0.016 0.059 0.105 0.091 0.114 0.035 0.011 0.056 
Papua New Guinea 0.032 0.042 0.023 0.070 0.086 0.056 0.030 0.040 0.022 
Paraguay 0.032 0.022 0.042 0.173 0.280 0.077 0.023 0.005 0.040 
Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.003 
Saint Lucia 0.004 0.001 0.006 0.016 0.009 0.022 0.003 0.001 0.005 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.011 0.009 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.003 
Sri Lanka 0.102 0.092 0.112 0.249 0.284 0.217 0.095 0.081 0.107 
Suriname 0.009 0.009 0.011 0.017 0.007 0.027 0.009 0.009 0.010 
Swaziland 0.019 0.018 0.019 0.068 0.082 0.056 0.015 0.014 0.016 
Trinidad and Tobago 0.086 0.102 0.071 0.086 0.072 0.098 0.088 0.107 0.071 
Uruguay 0.047 0.044 0.050 0.209 0.333 0.096 0.037 0.025 0.048 
Zimbabwe 0.037 0.037 0.039 0.151 0.280 0.067 0.030 0.021 0.037 
 
 a  Excludes intra-trade of the European Communities and significant re-exports. 
Source : All data are from the United Nations Comtrade databa se except for World totals, which are WTO estimates. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 34  
 
  12. Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.1 (8 February 2008) 
II. MARKET ACCESS 
T
IERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS  
64. Developing country Members other than t hose specified in paragraph 66 below shall 
reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual instalments over eight years in accordance 
with the following tiered formula: 
(a) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 0 and 
less than or equal to 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 62(a)  above; 
(b) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
30 per cent and less than or equal to 80 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of 
the cut for developed countr y Members in paragraph 62(b)  above; 
(c) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
80 per cent and less than or equal to 1 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 
of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 62(c)  above;  and 
(d) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 62(d)  above. 
65. Small, vulnerable economies
29 shall be entitled to moderate the cuts specified in 
paragraph 64 above by a further [10] ad valorem  percentage points in each band 
D. S PECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT  
Special Products 
 
123. Developing country Members shall be entitled to self-designate Special Products 
guided by indicators30 based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural 
development.[31]  There shall be a minimum entitlement of 8 per cent32, and a maximum 
                                                      
29 The Members concerned are those that meet the cr iteria set out in paragraph 151 and are listed in 
Annex I.  As is made clear in the Agreed Framewor k, Small vulnerable economies (SVEs) are not meant to 
create any sub -category of Members.  Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be 
deemed to be eligible for this treatment, should they choose to avail themselves of it, despite not being members of the SVE Group per se  given that this treatment could be deemed  to be broadly comparably appropriate:  
Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they 
meet the criteria in paragraph 151). 
30 See Annex F. 
31 Below the minimum entitlement of 8 per cent referred to in the next sentence, the developing country 
Member concerned need not resort to guidance by those indicators. 
32 Where a Member finds that it would not, after guidance by indicators, be entitled to any additional 
Special Products beyond the minimum provided for in this paragraph, that Member may, in effect, "transfer" 
any unused Sensitive Products entitlement to obtain th ereby additional Special Products, subject to the 
following:  (a) that the maximum entitlement for transfer cannot be more than would be consistent with 
respecting the overall ceiling of [12] [20] per cent of tariff lines for Special Products; and (b) that the tariff 
reduction treatment for the tariff lines concerned shall be in conformity with the tariff cut entitlements for Special Products under this paragraph, except that se nsitive product "transfers" cannot be used for [additional] 
"no cut" Special Products.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 35 
 
 
  entitlement of [12] [20] per cent, of tari ff lines available for self-designation as Special 
Products.  Under this provision, there is an entitlement to [6] per cent of tariff lines which 
shall take a tariff cut of [8] [15] per cent.  A further [6] per cent is available with a cut of 
[12] [25] per cent.  [[A further] [8 per cent of] [no] tariff lines shall be eligible for no cut.] 
124. In the case of small vulnerable economies, they may, if they choose to do so, apply 
the moderated tariff tiered formula for SVEs provided for in paragraph 61 above plus the 
Special Product entitlement outlined above.  Altern atively, they may simply deviate from the 
tiered formula cut for as many tariff lines as th ey choose to designate as a Special Product 
provided that they meet the overall average cut of 24 per cent.  The tariff lines that they 
designate as Special Products need not be subject to any minimum tariff cut and this 
designation need not be guided by the indicat ors.  Developing country Members shall be 
entitled to self-designate Special Products guided by indicators33 based on the criteria of food 
security, livelihood security and rural development.  There shall be 10-18 per cent of tariff lines available for self-designation as Special Products
34.  Up to 6 per cent of/no lines may 
have no cut.  The overall average cut sh all, in any case, be 10-14 percent.  
G. SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
134. For the purposes of this Agreement, this  term applies to Members with economies 
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.  
135. Developed country Members a nd developing country Members in a position to do so 
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to 
Members with small, vulnerable economies. 
136. More specific provisions are to be found in relevant sections of this document. 
ANNEX I 
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
 
1. The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous 
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004 (TN/MA/S/18).  Individual Members' data were  extracted from the United Nations Comtrade 
database on 6 June 2007.  World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports 
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006.  This time period 
has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustme nt has been applied to world exports by 
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall results
35.  The country averages are calculated on th e basis of the years for which data are 
available.  
                                                      
33 See Annex F. 
34 Below this level, the developing country Member  concerned need not resort to guidance by those 
indicators.  In the case of RAMs, the threshold level above  which indicators are not required to be used shall be 
1 percentage point higher. 
35 Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of 
reporters in Comtrade.  World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to the WTO's world exports by commodity group and ali gning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total 
imports Intra-trade of the 25 member States of the Eu ropean Communities was then subtracted from the totals. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 36  
 
  6. A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one whose average share for the period 
1999-2004 (a) of world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent and (c) of world agricultural trade does not 
exceed 0.40 per cent. 
7. The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as 
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those 
Members for which no data are available.  
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4
 Page 37 Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Worlda 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
Albania 0.019 0.008 0.029 0.050 0.008 0.087 0.017 0.008 0.026 
Antigua and Barbuda 0.004 0.001 0.007 0.011 0.000 0.020 0.004 0.001 0.006 
Armenia 0.015 0.010 0.019 0.040 0.018 0.060 0.013 0.010 0.016 
Barbados 0.013 0.005 0.020 0.037 0.022 0.050 0.011 0.004 0.019 
Belize 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.023 0.029 0.017 0.004 0.001 0.007 
Bolivia 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.102 0.143 0.065 0.028 0.025 0.030 
Botswana 0.057 0.061 0.053 0.075 0.030 0.116 0.056 0.065 0.048 
Brunei Darussalam 0.050 0.078 0.025 0.029 0.000 0.056 0.053 0.086 0.023 
Cameroon 0.036 0.038 0.035 0.112 0.140 0.087 0.032 0.032 0.032 
Cuba 0.063 0.034 0.089 0.240 0.223 0.256 0.052 0.022 0.080 
Dominica 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.005 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.002 
Dominican Rep. 0.068 0.018 0.113 0.154 0.115 0.189 0.063 0.011 0.111 
Ecuador 0.110 0.112 0.108 0.326 0.515 0.154 0.098 0.087 0.107 
El Salvador 0.051 0.026 0.075 0.173 0.136 0.206 0.044 0.018 0.068 
Fiji 0.014 0.010 0.018 0.047 0.055 0.040 0.012 0.007 0.017 
FYR Macedonia 0.033 0.026 0.039 0.076 0.069 0.083 0.027 0.024 0.030 
Gabon 0.031 0.046 0.017 0.026 0.004 0.046 0.032 0.051 0.015 
Georgia 0.014 0.009 0.020 0.052 0.044 0.060 0.012 0.006 0.018 
Ghana 0.057 0.044 0.067 0.221 0.302 0.144 0.047 0.027 0.063 
Grenada 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.012 0.002 0.001 0.004 
Guatemala 0.086 0.053 0.116 0.319 0.416 0.231 0.072 0.030 0.110 
Guyana 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.037 0.052 0.024 0.008 0.007 0.010 
Honduras 0.041 0.026 0.056 0.190 0.223 0.160 0.032 0.013 0.049 
Jamaica 0.044 0.024 0.063 0.114 0.091 0.136 0.040 0.020 0.059 
Jordan 0.079 0.052 0.104 0.198 0.120 0.269 0.071 0.049 0.092 
Kenya 0.052 0.037 0.065 0.215 0.314 0.126 0.041 0.019 0.062 
Kyrgyzstan 0.011 0.010 0.012 0.029 0.032 0.026 0.010 0.009 0.011 
Macao, China 0.049 0.049 0.048 0.055 0.013 0.093 0.050 0.053 0.046  
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 38  Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Mauritius 0.037 0.032 0.041 0.096 0.102 0.090 0.034 0.028 0.038 
Moldova 0.018 0.013 0.022 0.089 0.132 0.051 0.013 0.006 0.021 
Mongolia 0.013 0.011 0.014 0.025 0.017 0.033 0.012 0.011 0.013 
Namibia 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.072 0.073 0.070 0.028 0.028 0.027 
Nicaragua 0.023 0.012 0.034 0.102 0.129 0.079 0.018 0.004 0.031 
Panama 0.038 0.016 0.059 0.105 0.091 0.114 0.035 0.011 0.056 
Papua New Guinea 0.032 0.042 0.023 0.070 0.086 0.056 0.030 0.040 0.022 
Paraguay 0.032 0.022 0.042 0.173 0.280 0.077 0.023 0.005 0.040 
Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.003 
Saint Lucia 0.004 0.001 0.006 0.016 0.009 0.022 0.003 0.001 0.005 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.011 0.009 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.003 
Sri Lanka 0.102 0.092 0.112 0.249 0.284 0.217 0.095 0.081 0.107 
Suriname 0.009 0.009 0.011 0.017 0.007 0.027 0.009 0.009 0.010 
Swaziland 0.019 0.018 0.019 0.068 0.082 0.056 0.015 0.014 0.016 
Trinidad and Tobago 0.086 0.102 0.071 0.086 0.072 0.098 0.088 0.107 0.071 
Uruguay 0.047 0.044 0.050 0.209 0.333 0.096 0.037 0.025 0.048 
Zimbabwe 0.037 0.037 0.039 0.151 0.280 0.067 0.030 0.021 0.037 
 
 a  Excludes intra-trade of the European Communities and significant re-exports. 
Source : All data are from the United Nations Comtrade databa se except for World totals, which are WTO estimates.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 39 
 
 
  13. Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.2 (19 May 2008) 
II. MARKET ACCESS 
A. T IERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS  
63. Developing country Members other than t hose specified in paragraph 65 below shall 
reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual instalments over eight years in accordance 
with the following tiered formula: 
(a) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 0 and 
less than or equal to 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(a)  above; 
(b) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
30 per cent and less than or equal to 80 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of 
the cut for developed countr y Members in paragraph 61(b)  above; 
(c) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
80 per cent and less than or equal to 1 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 
of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(c)  above;  and 
(d) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem  equivalent is greater than 
130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61(d)   above. 
65. Those small, vulnerable economies
36, including those among them which are ceiling 
binding and homogenously low binding countries, which choose to exercise the option set forth in paragraph 120 below shall be entitled to moderate the cuts specified in paragraph 63 
above by a further 10 ad valorem  percentage points in each band. 
D. S
PECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT  
Special Products 
 
118. Developing country Members shall be entitled to self-designate Special Products 
guided by indicators37 based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural 
development.  There shall be 10-18 per cent of tariff lines available for self-designation as 
Special Products38.  Up to 6 per cent of/no lines may have no cut.  The overall average cut 
shall, in any case, be 10-14 percent.  
                                                      
36 The Members concerned are those that meet the cr iteria set out in paragraph 151 and are listed in 
Annex I.  As is made clear in the Agreed Framewor k, Small vulnerable economies (SVEs) are not meant to 
create any sub -category of Members.  Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be 
deemed to be eligible for this treatment, should they choose to avail themselves of it, despite not being members of the SVE Group per se  given that this treatment could be deemed  to be broadly comparably appropriate:  
Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they 
meet the criteria in paragraph 147) .  Additionally, Bolivia shall have access, exceptionally, to treatment 
equivalent to that provided for in paragraph 142. 
37 See Annex F. 
38 Below this level, the developing country Member  concerned need not resort to guidance by those 
indicators.  In the case of RAMs, the threshold level above  which indicators are not required to be used shall be 
1 percentage point higher. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 40  
 
  119. In the case of small vulnerable economies, including those among them which are 
ceiling binding and homogenously low binding countries, they may, if they choose to do so, apply the moderated tariff tiered formula for SV Es provided for in paragraph 61 above plus 
the Special Product entitlement outlined above.  A lternatively, they may chose not to apply 
the tiered formula but simply meet an overa ll average cut of 24 per cent through having in 
effect opted to designate as many tariff lines as they choose as Special Products.  The tariff 
lines so chosen need not be subject to any mini mum tariff cut and need not be guided by the 
indicators.  
G. 
SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
141. For the purposes of this Agreement, th is term applies to Members with economies 
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no 
more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.  
142. Developed country Member s and developing country Members in a position to do so 
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to 
Members with small, vulnerable economies. 
143. More specific provisions are to be foun d in relevant sections of this document. 
ANNEX I 
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
 
1. The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous 
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004 
(TN/MA/S/18).  Individual Members' data were  extracted from the United Nations Comtrade 
database on 6 June 2007.  World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports 
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006.  This time period has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustme nt has been applied to world exports by 
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall 
results
39.  The country averages are calculated on th e basis of the years for which data are 
available.  
8. A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one whose average share for the period 
1999-2004 (a) of world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent and (c) of world agricultural trade does not 
exceed 0.40 per cent. 
9. The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as 
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those Members for which no data are available. 
                                                     
 
39 Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of 
reporters in Comtrade.  World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to 
the WTO's world exports by commodity group and ali gning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total 
imports  Intra-trade of the 25 member  States of the European Communities was then subtracted from the totals.  
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4
 Page 41 Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Worlda 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
Albania 0.019 0.008 0.029 0.050 0.008 0.087 0.017 0.008 0.026 
Antigua and Barbuda 0.004 0.001 0.007 0.011 0.000 0.020 0.004 0.001 0.006 
Armenia 0.015 0.010 0.019 0.040 0.018 0.060 0.013 0.010 0.016 
Barbados 0.013 0.005 0.020 0.037 0.022 0.050 0.011 0.004 0.019 
Belize 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.023 0.029 0.017 0.004 0.001 0.007 
Bolivia 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.102 0.143 0.065 0.028 0.025 0.030 
Botswana 0.057 0.061 0.053 0.075 0.030 0.116 0.056 0.065 0.048 
Brunei Darussalam 0.050 0.078 0.025 0.029 0.000 0.056 0.053 0.086 0.023 
Cameroon 0.036 0.038 0.035 0.112 0.140 0.087 0.032 0.032 0.032 
Cuba 0.063 0.034 0.089 0.240 0.223 0.256 0.052 0.022 0.080 
Dominica 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.005 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.002 
Dominican Rep. 0.068 0.018 0.113 0.154 0.115 0.189 0.063 0.011 0.111 
Ecuador 0.110 0.112 0.108 0.326 0.515 0.154 0.098 0.087 0.107 
El Salvador 0.051 0.026 0.075 0.173 0.136 0.206 0.044 0.018 0.068 
Fiji 0.014 0.010 0.018 0.047 0.055 0.040 0.012 0.007 0.017 
FYR Macedonia 0.033 0.026 0.039 0.076 0.069 0.083 0.027 0.024 0.030 
Gabon 0.031 0.046 0.017 0.026 0.004 0.046 0.032 0.051 0.015 
Georgia 0.014 0.009 0.020 0.052 0.044 0.060 0.012 0.006 0.018 
Ghana 0.057 0.044 0.067 0.221 0.302 0.144 0.047 0.027 0.063 
Grenada 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.012 0.002 0.001 0.004 
Guatemala 0.086 0.053 0.116 0.319 0.416 0.231 0.072 0.030 0.110 
Guyana 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.037 0.052 0.024 0.008 0.007 0.010 
Honduras 0.041 0.026 0.056 0.190 0.223 0.160 0.032 0.013 0.049 
Jamaica 0.044 0.024 0.063 0.114 0.091 0.136 0.040 0.020 0.059 
Jordan 0.079 0.052 0.104 0.198 0.120 0.269 0.071 0.049 0.092 
Kenya 0.052 0.037 0.065 0.215 0.314 0.126 0.041 0.019 0.062 
Kyrgyzstan 0.011 0.010 0.012 0.029 0.032 0.026 0.010 0.009 0.011 
Macao, China 0.049 0.049 0.048 0.055 0.013 0.093 0.050 0.053 0.046  
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 42  Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Mauritius 0.037 0.032 0.041 0.096 0.102 0.090 0.034 0.028 0.038 
Moldova 0.018 0.013 0.022 0.089 0.132 0.051 0.013 0.006 0.021 
Mongolia 0.013 0.011 0.014 0.025 0.017 0.033 0.012 0.011 0.013 
Namibia 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.072 0.073 0.070 0.028 0.028 0.027 
Nicaragua 0.023 0.012 0.034 0.102 0.129 0.079 0.018 0.004 0.031 
Panama 0.038 0.016 0.059 0.105 0.091 0.114 0.035 0.011 0.056 
Papua New Guinea 0.032 0.042 0.023 0.070 0.086 0.056 0.030 0.040 0.022 
Paraguay 0.032 0.022 0.042 0.173 0.280 0.077 0.023 0.005 0.040 
Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.003 
Saint Lucia 0.004 0.001 0.006 0.016 0.009 0.022 0.003 0.001 0.005 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.011 0.009 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.003 
Sri Lanka 0.102 0.092 0.112 0.249 0.284 0.217 0.095 0.081 0.107 
Suriname 0.009 0.009 0.011 0.017 0.007 0.027 0.009 0.009 0.010 
Swaziland 0.019 0.018 0.019 0.068 0.082 0.056 0.015 0.014 0.016 
Trinidad and Tobago 0.086 0.102 0.071 0.086 0.072 0.098 0.088 0.107 0.071 
Uruguay 0.047 0.044 0.050 0.209 0.333 0.096 0.037 0.025 0.048 
Zimbabwe 0.037 0.037 0.039 0.151 0.280 0.067 0.030 0.021 0.037 
 
 a  Excludes intra-trade of the European Communities and significant re-exports. 
Source : All data are from the United Nations Comtrade databa se except for World totals, which are WTO estimates.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 43 
 
 
  14. Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture - TN/AG/W/4/Rev.3 (10 July 2008) 
II. MARKET ACCESS 
A. T IERED FORMULA FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS  
61. Developed country Members  shall reduce their final bound tariffs  in equal annual 
instalments over five years in accordan ce with the following tiered formula: 
(a) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 0 and 
less than or equal to 20 per cent, the reduction shall be 50 per cent; 
(b) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 
20 per cent and less than or equal to  50 per cent, the reduction shall be 
57 per cent; 
(c) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 
50 per cent and less than or equal to 75  per cent, the reduction shall be 64 
per cent;  and 
(d) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 
75 per cent, the reduction shall be [(66) (73)] per cent. 
63. Developing country Members other than t hose specified in paragraph 65 below shall 
reduce their final bound tariffs in equal annual instalments over eight years in accordance with the following tiered formula: 
(a) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 0 and less 
than or equal to 30 per cent, the reducti on shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed 
country Members in paragraph 61A.1.61(a) above; 
(b) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 
30 per cent and less than or equal to 80 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of 
the cut for developed country Member s in paragraph 61A.1.61(b) above; 
(c) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 
80 per cent and less than or equal to 1 30 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 
of the cut for developed country Memb ers in paragraph 61A.1.61(c) above;  
and 
(d) where the final bound tariff or ad valorem equivalent is greater than 
130 per cent, the reduction shall be 2/3 of the cut for developed country Members in paragraph 61A.1.61(d) above. 
65. Those small, vulnerable economies
40, including those among them which are ceiling 
binding and homogenously low binding countries, which choose to exercise the option set 
                                                      
40 The Members concerned are those that meet the cr iteria set out in paragraph 151 and are listed in 
Annex I.  As is made clear in the Agreed Framewor k, Small vulnerable economies (SVEs) are not meant to 
create any sub -category of Members.  Bearing that principle in mind, the following Members could also be 
deemed to be eligible for this treatment, should they choose to avail themselves of it, despite not being members of the SVE Group per se  given that this treatment could be deemed  to be broadly comparably appropriate:  
Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria (plus other Members that can provide data that show that they WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 44  
 
  forth in paragraph 120 below sh all be entitled to moderate the cuts specified in paragraph 61 
above by a further 10 ad valorem  percentage points in each band. 
D. S
PECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT  
Special Products 
 
120. Developing country Members shall be en titled to self-designate Special Products 
guided by indicators41 based on the criteria of food security, livelihood security and rural 
development.  There shall be 10-18 per cent of tariff lines available for self-designation as 
Special Products42.  Up to 6 per cent of/no lines may have no cut.  The overall average cut 
shall, in any case, be 10-14 per cent.  
121. In the case of small vulnerable economies, including those among them which are 
ceiling binding and homogenously low binding countries, they may, if they choose to do so, apply the moderated tariff tiered formula for SV Es provided for in paragraph 65 above plus 
the Special Product entitlement outlined above.  A lternatively, they may chose not to apply 
the tiered formula but simply meet an overa ll average cut of 24 per cent through having in 
effect opted to designate as many tariff lines as they choose as Special Products.  The tariff 
lines so chosen need not be subject to any mini mum tariff cut and need not be guided by the 
indicators.  
G. 
SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
122. For the purposes of this Agreement, this  term applies to Members with economies 
that, in the period 1999 to 2004, had an average share of (a) world merchandise trade of no 
more than 0.16 per cent or less, and (b) world trade in non-agricultural products of no more 
than 0.1 per cent and (c) world trade in agricultural products of no more than 0.4 per cent.  
123. Developed country Members a nd developing country Members in a position to do so 
shall provide enhanced improvements in market access for products of export interest to 
Members with small, vulnerable economies. 
124. More specific provisions are to be found in relevant sections of this document. 
ANNEX I 
SMALL, VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
 
1. The data are based on the methodology that was used to prepare a previous 
Secretariat paper on shares of WTO Members in world non-agricultural trade, 1999-2004 
(TN/MA/S/18).  Individual Members' data were  extracted from the United Nations Comtrade 
database on 6 June 2007.  World export and import totals, excluding significant re-exports 
were taken from the Secretariat's International Trade Statistics Report 2006.  This time period has been updated to 2000-2005 and a cif-fob adjustme nt has been applied to world exports by 
commodity group to derive respective world imports, but this does not change the overall 
                                                                                                                                                                    
 
meet the criteria in paragraph 147) . Additionally, Bolivia shall have access, exceptionally, to treatment 
equivalent to that provided for in paragraph 142. 
41 See Annex F. 
42 Below this level, the developing country Member  concerned need not resort to guidance by those 
indicators.  In the case of RAMs, the threshold level above  which indicators are not required to be used shall be 
1 percentage point higher.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 45 
 
 
  results43.  The country averages are calculated on th e basis of the years for which data are 
available.  
10. A small, vulnerable economy is defined as one whose average share for the period 
1999-2004 (a) of world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent and (b) of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent and (c) of world agricultural trade does not 
exceed 0.40 per cent. 
11. The attached table does not include those Members that are defined as 
least-developed countries by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and those Members for which no data are available. 
                                                     
 
43 Cif-fob factors were estimated based on the ratio of imports to exports for a matched group of 
reporters in Comtrade.  World imports by commodity group were derived by applying these cif-fob factors to 
the WTO's world exports by commodity group and ali gning the resulting figures to the WTO's world total 
imports  Intra-trade of the 25 member  States of the European Communities was then subtracted from the totals.  
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 46 
 Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Worlda 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
Albania 0.019 0.008 0.029 0.050 0.008 0.087 0.017 0.008 0.026 
Antigua and Barbuda 0.004 0.001 0.007 0.011 0.000 0.020 0.004 0.001 0.006 
Armenia 0.015 0.010 0.019 0.040 0.018 0.060 0.013 0.010 0.016 
Barbados 0.013 0.005 0.020 0.037 0.022 0.050 0.011 0.004 0.019 
Belize 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.023 0.029 0.017 0.004 0.001 0.007 
Bolivia 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.102 0.143 0.065 0.028 0.025 0.030 
Botswana 0.057 0.061 0.053 0.075 0.030 0.116 0.056 0.065 0.048 
Brunei Darussalam 0.050 0.078 0.025 0.029 0.000 0.056 0.053 0.086 0.023 
Cameroon 0.036 0.038 0.035 0.112 0.140 0.087 0.032 0.032 0.032 
Cuba 0.063 0.034 0.089 0.240 0.223 0.256 0.052 0.022 0.080 
Dominica 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.005 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.002 
Dominican Rep. 0.068 0.018 0.113 0.154 0.115 0.189 0.063 0.011 0.111 
Ecuador 0.110 0.112 0.108 0.326 0.515 0.154 0.098 0.087 0.107 
El Salvador 0.051 0.026 0.075 0.173 0.136 0.206 0.044 0.018 0.068 
Fiji 0.014 0.010 0.018 0.047 0.055 0.040 0.012 0.007 0.017 
FYR Macedonia 0.033 0.026 0.039 0.076 0.069 0.083 0.027 0.024 0.030 
Gabon 0.031 0.046 0.017 0.026 0.004 0.046 0.032 0.051 0.015 
Georgia 0.014 0.009 0.020 0.052 0.044 0.060 0.012 0.006 0.018 
Ghana 0.057 0.044 0.067 0.221 0.302 0.144 0.047 0.027 0.063 
Grenada 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.012 0.002 0.001 0.004 
Guatemala 0.086 0.053 0.116 0.319 0.416 0.231 0.072 0.030 0.110 
Guyana 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.037 0.052 0.024 0.008 0.007 0.010 
Honduras 0.041 0.026 0.056 0.190 0.223 0.160 0.032 0.013 0.049 
Jamaica 0.044 0.024 0.063 0.114 0.091 0.136 0.040 0.020 0.059  
   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4
 Page 47 Share of total merchandise trade 
(%) Share of world agriculture (AOA) 
trade (%)  Share of non-agriculture (NAMA) 
trade (%) 
WTO Member Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports Total 
(exports + 
imports Exports Imports 
Jordan 0.079 0.052 0.104 0.198 0.120 0.269 0.071 0.049 0.092 
Kenya 0.052 0.037 0.065 0.215 0.314 0.126 0.041 0.019 0.062 
Kyrgyzstan 0.011 0.010 0.012 0.029 0.032 0.026 0.010 0.009 0.011 
Macao, China 0.049 0.049 0.048 0.055 0.013 0.093 0.050 0.053 0.046 
Mauritius 0.037 0.032 0.041 0.096 0.102 0.090 0.034 0.028 0.038 
Moldova 0.018 0.013 0.022 0.089 0.132 0.051 0.013 0.006 0.021 
Mongolia 0.013 0.011 0.014 0.025 0.017 0.033 0.012 0.011 0.013 
Namibia 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.072 0.073 0.070 0.028 0.028 0.027 
Nicaragua 0.023 0.012 0.034 0.102 0.129 0.079 0.018 0.004 0.031 
Panama 0.038 0.016 0.059 0.105 0.091 0.114 0.035 0.011 0.056 
Papua New Guinea 0.032 0.042 0.023 0.070 0.086 0.056 0.030 0.040 0.022 
Paraguay 0.032 0.022 0.042 0.173 0.280 0.077 0.023 0.005 0.040 
Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.003 
Saint Lucia 0.004 0.001 0.006 0.016 0.009 0.022 0.003 0.001 0.005 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.011 0.009 0.012 0.002 0.000 0.003 
Sri Lanka 0.102 0.092 0.112 0.249 0.284 0.217 0.095 0.081 0.107 
Suriname 0.009 0.009 0.011 0.017 0.007 0.027 0.009 0.009 0.010 
Swaziland 0.019 0.018 0.019 0.068 0.082 0.056 0.015 0.014 0.016 
Trinidad and Tobago 0.086 0.102 0.071 0.086 0.072 0.098 0.088 0.107 0.071 
Uruguay 0.047 0.044 0.050 0.209 0.333 0.096 0.037 0.025 0.048 
Zimbabwe 0.037 0.037 0.039 0.151 0.280 0.067 0.030 0.021 0.037 
 
 a  Excludes intra-trade of the European Communities and significant re-exports. 
Source : All data are from the United Nations Comtrade databa se except for World totals, which are WTO estimates. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 48  
 
   
15. G-33 Proposal on the Treatment of SSM provided to the SVEs - TN/AG/GEN/29 
(10 February 2009) 
4. The basis and the structure for the SSM to be agreed should be the one in the 
document TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4. 
5. In that regard, it should include a paragraph 133 bis for the SVEs, as follows: 
133 bis 
As regards the volume-based SSM, it shall be applied on the basis of a rolling average of 
imports in the preceding three-year period fo r which data are available (hereafter "base 
imports").  On this basis, the applicable tr iggers and remedies shall be set as follows: 
 
(a) where the volume of imports during any year exceeds 110 per cent but does not 
exceed 115 per cent of base imports, the maximum additional duty that may be imposed shall not exceed 25 per cent of the current bound tariff or 25 percentage points, whichever is higher; 
(b) where the volume of imports during any year exceeds 115 per cent but does not 
exceed 120 per cent of base imports, the maximum additional duty that may be imposed shall not exceed 40 per cent of the current bound tariff or 40 percentage points, whichever is higher; 
(c) where the volume of imports during any year exceeds 120 per cent of base 
imports, the maximum additional duty that may be imposed shall not exceed 
50 per cent of the current bound tariff or  50 percentage points, whichever is 
higher. 
6. In paragraph 144, the maximum increase over the pre-Doha bound tariff should be 75 
ad valorem  percentage points or 75 per cent of the current bound tariff whichever is higher.  
Also, a maximum of 30 per cent of tariff lines in  any given period should be allowed to go 
beyond the pre-Doha bound levels.
44 
7. Further, as a matter of abundant caution for the SVEs, the SVEs reiterates some of its 
existing positions which hold good for SVEs  as well as for other developing countries. 
• The provisions in the proposed paragraph 133 bis (a) to (c) are without prejudice to 
Members' rights to raise their applied ta riffs up to the level of their current bound 
tariffs. 
• The triggers and remedies in paragraph 133 will apply for both within and over the pre-
Doha bound rates. 
• No mandatory cross check mechan ism of any kind is acceptable. 
 
8. For all developing countries’ markets in cluding SVEs and LDCs, depressed prices 
attributable to high subsidies and market impe rfections/failures can have  a deleterious effect 
on domestic production and markets.  As such, the price-based mechanism is of crucial 
importance and a focused discussion on the m odalities for the price-based mechanism, 
including the flexibilities for SVEs, is called for as soon as possible. 
                                                      
44 Bolivia is not in a position to support these numbers at this stage and remains with the pre-July 
position of the Group.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 49 
 
 
  9. Finally, the G-33 emphasizes that both the volume-based SSM and price-based SSM 
have to be designed in order to address their n eeds in a simple and effective manner, and that 
this will only be achievable by extending add itional and substantive special and differential 
treatment to the group. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 50  
 
  V. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL 
PRODUCTS 
A. 
CURRENT MODALITIES DRAFT  
1. Fourth Revision of Draft Modalities fo r Non-Agricultural Market Access – 
TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3 (6 December 2008) 
Small, Vulnerable Economies  
13. With the exception of developed Members,  those Members having a share of less than 
0.1 percent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best 
available data as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following modality 
of tariff reduction instead of the formula moda lity which is contained in paragraphs 5, 6 
and 7 above.  
 
(a) Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:45  
 
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind all of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an 
average level that does not exceed an overall average of 30 per cent; 
(ii) at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural 
tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall average of 
27 per cent;   
(iii) at or above 20 per cent but below 30 shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff 
lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall average 18 per cent;  and 
(iv) below 20 per cent, shall apply a minimum line-by-line reduction of 5 per cent on 
95 per cent of all non-agricultural tariff lin es or bind at the overall average that 
would result from that line-by-line reduction.    
 As an exception, Bolivia shall not be requi red but is encouraged to apply the modalities 
in paragraph 13.  
 
As an exception, Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (a)(i). 
 
As an exception, Gabon shall engage in GA TT Article XXVIII negotiations to reach the 
overall target average of 20 per cent.  
 
(b) All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of  the year following the entry into force of 
the DDA results at initial bound rates.  As an exception, Fiji shall have the flexibility to 
maintain 10 per cent of non-agricultural tariff lines unbound.   
 
(c) The initial bound rates shall be establishe d as follows: for bound tariff lines the existing 
bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to this modality 
will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.   
 
                                                      
45 See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 51 
 
 
  (d) The overall binding target average sha ll be made effective at the end of the 
implementation period as follows:  the tariff re ductions shall be impl emented in 11 equal 
rate reductions.  The first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year 
following the entry into force of the DDA r esults and each successive reduction shall be 
made effective on 1 January of each of th e following years, except for lines covered 
under 13(e) where the first reduction shall be  implemented on 1 January of the year 
following completion of the grace period.  
 
(e) For those Recently Acceded Members applying this modality, a grace period of 3 years 
shall be applied on those lines on whic h accession commitments are not fully 
implemented before entry into force of th e DDA results.  This grace period shall begin as 
of the date of full implementation of the accession commitment on that tariff line.  
 
(f) All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem  basis.  Existing bindings on a non ad valorem  
basis shall be converted to ad valorem  equivalents on the basis of  the methodology 
outlined in document TN/MA/20. 
 
B. HISTORIC EVOLUTION  
1. Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Treatment of Small, Vulnerable 
Economies in the NAMA Negotiations - TN/MA/W/66 (11 November 2005) 
Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Boliv ia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala,  Honduras, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New 
Guinea, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago. 
 9. As their contribution to the NAMA nego tiating process, small, vulnerable economies 
propose that developing countries, not covered in paragraph 6 and paragraph 9 of Annex B, 
and whose average share in total world merc handise exports does not exceed 0.10 per cent 
over the period 1995-2004,  will be expected to: 
(a) Make tariff reductions not exceeding 15 pe r cent, but with minimum cuts of 
10 per cent on individual lines and with no more than half the cuts at the lowest level of this range.  This contribution will ensure a significant reduction of small, vulnerable econom ies' tariff averages as well as a 
reduction in individual tariff lines. 
(b) On the treatment of unbound tariffs, small, vulnerable economies whose 
binding coverage is more then 90 per cent commit themselves to the objective of full tariff binding as an outcome of the NAMA negotiations.  However, newly bound tariff lines will not be subject to reductions through 
the formula during these negotiations.  Small, vulnerable economies are open to discuss a possible target rate at which these tariffs should be bound or a 
maximum rate at which to bind these lines. 
10. Small, vulnerable economies firmly belie ve that only tariff reductions compatible 
with their capacity to sustain trade reforms, as spelt out in this paper, are likely to efficiently 
discharge the Doha mandate.  In this context,  small, vulnerable economies will continue to 
have access to flexibilities such as those outlined in paragraph 8 of Annex B. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 52  
 
  2. Progress Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations Committee – TN/MA/16 
(24 November 2005), also Annex B of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration  
19. A paper was submitted recently by a group of Members which proposes inter alia 
lesser and linear cuts to Members identified by a criterion using trade share.  While some developing and developed Members were sympat hetic to the situation of such Members, 
concerns were expressed with respect to the thr eshold used to establish eligibility, and also the 
treatment envisaged.  Other developing Members expressed serious reservations about this proposal which in their view appeared to be creating a new category of developing Members, and to be further diluting the ambition of the NAMA negotiations.  The sponsors of this proposal stressed that the small, vulnerable economies had characteristics which warranted 
special treatment. 
20. This is an issue on which there is a ser ious divergence of opinion among developing 
Members.  This subject will need to be de bated further.  Discussions may be facilitated 
through additional statistical analysis. 
3. NAMA – Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Criteria and Treatment of 
SVEs, submission by the SVEs – (1 May 2006) 
 1. Following the submission of two pro posals to the Negotiating Group on Market 
Access
46, and in pursuance of paragraph 21 of th e Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration in 
which Ministers agreed to "establish ways to provide flexibilities" for the small, vulnerable 
economies, the proponents have held a series of  consultations with a number of delegations 
over the past weeks regarding the criteria and tr eatment of the small, vulnerable economies in 
the NAMA and agriculture modalities. 
2. Members of the NAMA Negotiating Group have shown an un derstanding of the 
concerns raised by the small, vulnerable ec onomies and have demonstrated a willingness to 
engage constructively to find solutions that are capable of integrating these economies into 
the multilateral trading system, consistent with the wishes of the Ministers. 
3. A number of issues were raised by dele gations participating in the consultations 
regarding the criteria and treatment of small, vulnerable economies as well as the contribution 
these economies are capable of making to trade liberalisation.  
7. The criteria  for the identification of potential developing country beneficiaries of 
this proposal in the NAMA negotiations, excluding LDC's, countries in transition and paragraph 6 countries, would apply to the remaining countries: 
• whose share of world merchandise trade does not exceed 0.16 per cent;  and 
• whose share of world NAMA trade does not exceed 0.10 per cent;  and 
• whose share of world agricultural trade does not exceed 0.40 per cent
47 
 8. The treatment  proposed for all developing c ountries who meet the above criteria 
would be that these countries would not be subject to formula cuts, but would bind 100 per cent of their non-agricultural tariff lines at  average levels reflected in the following 
tiers and bands: 
                                                     
 
46 JOB(05)/165 of 29 July 2005;  and TN/MA/W/66 of 11 November 2005. 
47 Data Source:  WTO, 1999 – 2004.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 53 
 
 
   
Current Bound 
Average % Average % 
Cut Final Bound 
Average % 
0 – 30 10 0 – 27 
31 – 40 15 26 – 34 
41 – 50 20 33 – 40 
51 - 60 25 38 – 45 
61 - 30 43 - 
 
 9. Beneficiaries with less than 50 per cent binding coverage shall be allowed to keep 
[5 per cent] of their lines unbound while binding the remaining [95 per cent] at an average of 
[  ]. 
  10. The implementation of the tariff reduc tion commitments should be staged over a 
longer period than other developing countries in order to ensure a smooth liberalisation 
process and not jeopardise the industrial and so cial development prospects of the small, 
vulnerable economies. 
 
4. Small and Vulnerable Economies - Text Proposal for the Chairman of NAMA by the 
Delegations of Costa Rica and Uruguay – Room Document (30 May 2006) 
Criteria
 
Regarding trade participation of a small a nd vulnerable economy in global trade, the 
identifying criteria should be as follows: 
 
• Developing countries whose share of world NAMA trade  (exp-imp) does not exceed a 
unique percentage to be agreed as a threshold. 
- WTO Secretariat statistics should be used in  order to determine the specific situation 
of these countries in this area of negotiation.  
- The period of reference to be used should be from year 1999 to year 2004 given that 
year 1999 is already included as the reference period in Annex B. 
 
Treatment  
Once the objective criteria and period of refe rence have been determined, the negotiating 
group should then proceed to negotiate the tr eatment.  Such treatment should take into 
account the following principles: 
 
• SVEs contribution should be significantly higher than the contribution to be agreed for 
paragraph 6 countries and LDCs.  
• Treatment should be compatible with the NAMA Framework and the Hong Kong 
Declaration. 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 54  
 
  Proposal
 
The treatment proposed for small and vulnerable economies is as follows:  
• Developing countries that have been identifie d by the above mentioned criteria to be 
small and vulnerable economies will benefit from a unique [X] additional percentage 
points to the figure currently in bracket s in paragraph 8(a) or paragraph 8(b)
48. 
 
5. NAMA 11 - Non-Paper – Small Vulnerable Economies – (30 May 2006) 
 4. For the above reasons, it is the view of the NAMA 1149 that a solution based on the 
paragraph 8, with appropriate modulation, will provide the much needed additional protection 
for the sensitivities and specific needs of th e SVEs.  In document TN/MA/W/66, the SVEs 
have pointed out that the flexibilities "as curren tly crafted in paragraph 8 are of very limited 
scope ... in addition, the thresholds and conditionalities limit the usefulness...".  The 
NAMA 11 agrees that these limitations have to be overcome and ther eby the following could 
be considered as an appropriate solution: 
 
i. Once the number in brackets of paragr aph 8(a) and (b) has been agreed for 
developing countries, additional flexibility  beyond that shall be identified for 
SVEs;  further relaxation of the trade li mitation, in particular, is an avenue 
worth exploring, considering the econo mic situation of SVEs, with a longer 
implementation period;  or 
 
ii. The SVEs could be permitted access to  paragraph 8(a) and (b) cumulatively, 
with a longer implementation period.  
 
6. Proposal on Small, Vulnerable Economies by Norway – Room Document (6 June 2006) 
For the purposes of the NAMA negotiations, we propose that developing Members 
whose share of total NAMA trade (imports plus exports) does not exceed [0.1] per cent for the 
time period of 1999-2004 as contained in documen t TN/MA/S/18 shall be considered a small, 
vulnerable economy pursuant to paragraph 21 of  the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  
In the event that NAMA trade data is not av ailable for a Member for any of the years 
in this time period, that Member's share of  total NAMA trade shall be calculated by the 
Secretariat using the best available data.  
We propose that the developing Members who meet the above criteria will bind 
[100] per cent of their non agricultural tariffs.  The average bound tariff level of a Member being considered a small, vulnerable econom y will not exceed [X] per cent after the 
implementation period.  In meeting this re quirement, beneficiaries would make minimum 
reductions of [Y] per cent on individual tariff lines.
50 
                                                      
48 The additional [X] percentage points will depend on  the share of NA MA trade to be agreed in the 
selection criteria.  These [X] percentage points would be higher if the threshold of NAMA trade is lower, and vice versa.  
49 Grouping includes Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, South Africa, 
Tunisia and Venezuela. 
50 The values of X and Y should be set at appropriat e levels with the objective to ensure that the SVEs 
make a contribution that goes beyond the contribution to be made by the Members covered by paragraph 6. 
The values of X and Y are related.  The more stri ngent the average requirement, the less stringent will 
be the line by line reduction requirement, and vice versa.  Mathematically, this implies that the lower X is the 
lower Y will be.  The exact levels of these variables will be determined by Members.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 55 
 
 
  7. Treatment of Small, Vulnerable Economies in  the NAMA Negotiations, Proposal by the 
SVEs – (15 June 2006) 
4. The following principles have guided the revision of the SVEs treatment  proposal: 
 
• SVEs should not be penalised for the pr ogressive liberalization decisions they 
made during the Uruguay Round, nor should they be asked to accept cuts in 
this Round greater than Members who achieve greater benefits from the 
Round. 
 
• The dispersion in proponent's current bound averages (32.6 to 73.0) demands 
variable cuts to variable final bound averages. 
 
• The treatment  being sought by the small, vulnerable economies should be 
compatible with the terms and me chanisms established in the NAMA 
Framework (Annex B of the July 2004 decision by the General Council) and 
further mandated in paragraph 21 of th e Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
 
• This proposal builds on the treatment pr oposed in the Norwegian submission, 
which did receive some favourable responses. 
 
• Full binding at any one bound average is not easily compared with less than 
full binding at the same bound average. 
 
• There is no justification for all SVEs binding at a lower average than other 
members whose economies are at similar levels of development. 
 
5. Based on data from the World Trade Report 2005, SVE proponents (excluding 
paragraph 6 and LDC countries) have average a pplied rates of 7.6 per cent while paragraph 6 
countries have an average of 13.8 per cent and LDCs 13.4 per cent.  SVEs effort to welcome 
imports is therefore clear. 
 Proposal :  
 6. The treatment  proposed for small, vulnerable economies would be that these 
countries would not be subject to formula cuts, but would bind 100 per cent of their non-agricultural tariff lines at average leve ls reflected in the following bands: 
 
Current Bound 
Average % Average % 
Cut Expected Final 
Bound Average 
% 
≤  37 [….] [….] 
38 – 47 [….] [….] 
48 – 57 [….] [….] 
≥  58  [….] [….] 
  
7. Tariff reduction for SVEs shall be on the basis of lo wer tariff cuts for those in the 
lower bands and higher cuts for those in the higher bands  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 56  
 
   
8. In meeting this requirement, benefici aries would make minimum reductions of 
[  ] per cent on a maximum of [  ] per cent of individual tariff lines 
 
9. In the specific case of Fiji with less th an 50 per cent binding coverage, Fiji shall be 
allowed to keep [5 per cent] of their lines unbound while binding the remaining [95 per cent] 
at an average of [  ]. 
 
10. The implementation of the tariff reducti on commitments should be staged over a 
longer period than other developing countries in order to ensure a smooth liberalisation 
process and not jeopardise the industrial and so cial development prospects of the small, 
vulnerable economies.  
8. Towards NAMA Modalities – TN/MA/W/80 (19 July 2006) 
 Modalities
51 
 
 The criteria  
  With the exception of developed countries, Members having a share of NAMA trade (exports 
and imports) of less than [0.1 per cent] of wo rld trade for a reference period of 1999 to 2001, 
or best available data, as contained in docu ment TN/MA/S/18 may use the following modality 
for tariff reduction:  
  It is understood that this does not create a sub-category of WTO Members.  
 Chairman's remarks 
  The criteria
 
  There is consensus on the use of this cr iterion to determine eligibility for additional 
flexibilities as a small, vulnerable economy.  
 
 While recognizing that this benchmark establish es only that an economy is small, in terms of 
its NAMA trade, Members have acknowledged the difficulties of articulating additional 
criteria to establish that economies are also vulnerable and can accept the single criterion. 
  The proponents have proposed additional criteri a related to agricultural trade and total goods 
(both NAMA and agriculture) trade.  Many Me mbers oppose the use of such criteria, arguing 
that this would create a new sub-category of Members.  I would note, in this regard, that it is important for many Members that the treatme nt of small, vulnerable economies in these 
negotiations does not create a precedent for future negotiations. 
  Finally, it was noted that this criterion should be understood as only a "trigger" for eligibility 
– that is, the criterion alone should not define the group of countries that will have access to 
these flexibilities.  Members will recall that th e proponents do not include all countries with 
trade below this threshold. 
  The treatment
 
 
 There is no consensus on the treatment of small, vulnerable economies.  
                                                      
51 In the reference Paper, there is no text in the modalities concerning the treatment of small economies.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 57 
 
 
   
 There are two basic options on the table:  a pa ragraph 6-type solution or a paragraph 8-type 
solution.  The first option  has two variations, one put forw ard by the SVEs proponents and the 
second by Norway.  The SVE proponents have s uggested a banded approach while Norway's 
proposal is more similar in structure to paragra ph 6, with a single target tariff average.  The 
second option  is to use a paragraph 8-type solu tion, which would envisage increasing the 
flexibilities in paragraph 8.  There are different  permutations of this option including adding 
percentage points to the existing numbers in paragraph 8;  removing the trade limitation, 
combining sub-paragraph (a) and (b), and by extending the implementation period. 
 
 Unfortunately, I am unable to provide much guidance on this issue.  I would note that one 
factor which has made this discussion difficult is the diverse tariff profiles of the SVE proponents.  Beyond this, I can only repeat my view that a satisfactory contribution from these Members can be achieved using either th e paragraph 8 or paragraph 6 approach.  The 
central question, therefore, is how great a contribution is required of these Members. 
 
9. Draft NAMA Modalities – JOB(07)/126 (17 July 2007) 
Chairman’s Introduction to the Draft NAMA Modalities
 
  
 Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs)  
 
32. In my July 2006 report to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TN/MA/W/80), I 
proposed that consensus had been reached on the trigger for access to  the flexibilities for 
SVEs.  Specifically, I noted that Members had ag reed to abandon the search for benchmarks 
of vulnerability and had accepted a single e ligibility criterion based on the value of NAMA 
trade, that is less than 0.1 per cent of  world trade in non-agricultural products. 
33. On the question of the treatment of SVEs , while Members remained divided - then 
and now - on the architecture of the flexib ility (a formula tariff reduction with expanded 
flexibilities or a target average tariff reducti on as proposed by the proponents), they widely 
agreed that the central question was the level of  contribution to be made by these Members to 
the Round. 
34. As regards the architecture of the modality, I have proposed the tariff average 
approach, in three tiers based on average bound tariffs, and including a minimum line-by-line 
tariff reduction.  I believe that this arch itecture is appropriate  because it facilitates 
differentiated treatment of a very diverse gr oup of Members.  A tiered approach would 
provide for some degree of harmonization of tariffs among them, with the Members with the 
highest tariffs making the greatest reduction.  Moreover, based on my consultations, I believe 
that this architecture is the more likely to find consensus, provided the level of contribution to 
the Round is satisfactory.   
35. With respect to that contribution, I have proposed target tariff averages of 14, 18 and 
22 per cent, together with a minimum line-by-line tariff reduction of 10 per cent on 95 per cent of tariff lines.  This would ensure a minimum contribution to the market access 
outcome in the Round, while providing a very si gnificant flexibility in how that contribution 
is made.  SVEs would reduce their average tariffs in reasonable proportion to other 
developing countries but would be  permitted greater flexibility in how to structure their tariff 
schedules.  This approach is consistent with  the development needs of small, vulnerable 
economies. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 58  
 
  36. Special consideration of Fiji is proposed, in view of it’s low leve l of binding coverage 
and the fact that 100 per cent of tariffs lines are to be bound by SVEs. 
Draft NAMA Modalities 
Small, Vulnerable Economies
 
 
13. With the exception of developed Members, those Members having a share of less 
than 0.1 per cent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best available data as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following modality of tariff reduction instead of the formula modality wh ich is contained in pa ragraphs 5, 6 and 7 
above.  
 
(a) Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:
52  
 
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff lines at an 
average level that does not exceed an overall average of 22 per cent; 
 
(ii) at or above 30 per cent but be low 50 per cent shall bind all their 
non-agricultural tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall 
average of 18 per cent;  and  
(iii) below 30 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff lines at an average 
level that does not exceed an overall average 14 per cent.  
 Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (i).  
 
 In addition, 95 per cent of all non-agri cultural tariff lines shall be subject to a 
minimum cut of 10 per cent. 
 
(b) All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into force of 
the DDA results at initial bound rates.   
(c) The initial bound rates shall be establishe d as follows: for bound tariff lines the existing 
bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to this modality 
will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.    
(d) The overall binding target average sha ll be made effective at the end of the 
implementation period as follows:  the tariff re ductions shall be impl emented in 9 equal 
rate reductions.  The first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year 
following the entry into force of the DDA r esults and each successive reduction shall be 
made effective on 1 January of each of the following years.     
(e) All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem  basis.  Existing bindings on a non 
ad valorem  basis shall be converted to ad valorem  equivalents on the basis of  the 
methodology outlined in document  TN/MA/20. 
 
                                                     
 
52 See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 59 
 
 
  10. Submission by Small, Vulnerable Economies on Modalities to Apply in 
Non-Agricultural Market Access – TN/MA/W/100 (17 January 2008)53 54 
PRINCIPLES  
 
1. SVEs have signalled their willingness to cont ribute to the current Doha Development 
Round, consistent with their ability so to do, and taking into account their trade, economic and social realities.  SVEs should neither be penali zed for their liberalization decisions taken thus 
far, nor be required to undertake  reductions that are disproportionate to the marginal level of 
benefits likely to accrue from this Round.   
2. SVEs have verbally, and in written submissi ons, articulated the principles which have 
guided their proposals.  These principles em anate from work in the WTO Committee on 
Trade and Development over the years as well as from paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration, the July 2004 Framework Agreement and the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration.  
MODALITIES APPLICABLE TO SMALL , VULNERABLE ECONOMIES  
 3. The current modalities proposed for SVEs do not conform to the principle of less than 
full reciprocity in reduction commitments as these modalities require higher levels of 
contributions from SVEs, in comparison to ot her developing countries, and even some 
developed  countries.  These results are inconsistent  with the various mandates in this Doha 
Development Round on the flexibilities to be accord ed to developing countries in general, and 
the enhanced flexibilities to be provided to  SVEs, in particular, and are therefore 
unacceptable.  
4. The SVEs have, in the past, submitted proposals based on 5 bands, taking into 
account the tariff dispersion of the proponents.  It should be noted that the Chair's proposal 
effectively restricts the SVEs proponents to two (2) bands, with the 3
rd band accommodating 
SVEs RAMs.  However, consistent with the co nstructive engagement that has characterized 
the approach of SVEs thus far; the Group is  willing to work within the 3 band approach 
outlined by the Chair, so long as such bands a dhere to the principles outlined in the various 
mandates, including the principle of less than full reciprocity.  Acceptance of a 3 band 
approach is contingent on adequate flexibiliti es afforded to SVEs, including the requirement 
for maximum average reductions that are less th an those of developed countries and which are 
consistent with the economic, social, trade and development needs of SVEs. 
5. The flexibility to exempt, at their discretion,  10 per cent of tariff lines from reduction 
commitments is also an integral aspect of the flexibilities required by SVEs.  This flexibility 
is independent of the maximum ta riff reduction required of SVEs.  
6. The specific tariff reduction modalities to appl y to SVEs are outlined in Annex 1 of 
this paper. 
                                                      
53 Bolivia did not accompany this proposal. 
54 This proposal is without prejudi ce to the rights of those Recently Acceded Members (RAMs) that are 
Small, Vulnerable Economies, and the proposals submitte d by that Group to specifica lly address their concerns. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 60  
 
  Annex 1 
 
Revised Textual Proposal on the Provisions A pplicable to Small, Vulnerable Economies
 
 
(a) Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:  
 
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind their non-agricultural tariff lines at an 
average level of [32] per cent.  Where this average results in reductions that 
are greater than [40] per cent, the Member concerned would be entitled to apply lesser reductions, at its discreti on, in keeping with this maximum 
average reduction of [40] per cent. 
 (ii) at or above 30 per cent but below 50 at per cent shall bind their non-
agricultural tariff lines at an average level of [28] per cent.  Where this 
average results in reductions that are gr eater than [30] per cent, the Member 
concerned would be entitle d to apply lesser reductions , at its discretion, in 
keeping with this maximum average reduction of [30] per cent. 
  
Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (i).  
 
 In addition, 90 per cent of all non-agri cultural tariff lines shall be subject to a 
minimum cut of 5 per cent. 
 
(b) SVEs with a binding coverage of 50 pe r cent or less shall have the flexibility to 
maintain [10 per cent] of tariff lines unbound.  
 
(c) The implementation period for Small, Vu lnerable Economies shall be [2] years longer 
than that for other developing countries. 
 
11. Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultur al Market Access - TN/MA/W/103 
(8 February 2008) 
Draft Modalities 
 
Small, Vulnerable Economies
 
 
13. With the exception of developed Members, those Members having a share of less than 
0.1 per cent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best 
available data as contained in docum ent TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following 
modality of tariff reduction instead of the formula modality which is contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above.  
 
(a) Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:
55  
 
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind all of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an 
average level that does not exceed an overall average of [22 -32]  per cent; 
(ii) at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their 
non-agricultural tariff lines at an averag e level that does not exceed an overall 
average of [18-28] per cent;  and 
                                                      
55 See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 61 
 
 
  (iii) below 30 per cent shall bind all their no n-agricultural tariff lines at an average 
level that does not exceed an overall average [14-20]  per cent and shall apply 
a minimum line-by-line reduction of [5-10]  per cent on [90-95]  per cent of all 
non-agricultural tariff lines.    
 
  Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (a) (i). 
 
(b) All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into force 
of the DDA results at initial bound rates.  F iji shall have the flexibility to maintain 
10 per cent of non-agricultural tariff lines unbound. 
 (c) The initial bound rates shall be establis hed as follows:  for bound tariff lines the 
existing bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to 
this modality will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.   
 (d) The overall binding target average shall be made effective at the end of the 
implementation period as follows:  the tari ff reductions shall be implemented in 
[9] equal rate reductions.  The first reducti on shall be implemented on 1 January of 
the year following the entry into for ce of the DDA results and each successive 
reduction shall be made effective on 1 Janua ry of each of the following years, except 
for lines covered under 13(e) where the fi rst reduction shall be implemented on 
1 January of the year following completion of the grace period.  
 
(e) For those Recently Acceded Members a pplying this modality, a grace period of 
3 years shall be applied on those lines on which accession commitments are still being implemented.  This grace pe riod shall begin as of the date of full implementation of 
the accession commitment on that tariff line.  
 
(f) All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem  basis.  Existing bindings on a non 
ad valorem basis shall be converted to ad valorem  equivalents on the basis of  the 
methodology outlined in document TN/MA/20. 
 
Chairman's Comments 
 
There is agreement on the basic architecture a nd flexibility has been expressed by Members on 
the target tariff averages proposed in the July text.  Issues to resolve include: 
 
• Capping:  in an effort to find consensus,  SVE proponents have proposed higher target 
averages in exchange for withdrawing their proposal for caps in the average percentage 
reduction from bound rates – specifically, a 40 per cent cap (a)(i) and 30 per cent cap in 
(a)(ii).  There is not wide support for the idea of caps, but some Members have expressed a 
willingness to consider additional "bands" in (a) to address the concerns of SVE Members 
most disproportionately affected  by the current architecture. 
• Minimum line-by-line cut:  SVE proponents proposed a minimum line-by-line tariff cut, 
but I have detected little real interest in th is additional modality, except in respect of 
(a)(iii) since this may be the only contribution of some Members in that band. 
• Bolivia:  an informal proposal was submitted by Bolivia arguing that, in view of their 
exceptional economic circumstances, they should  be granted the flexibility to substantially 
preserve (not specified) their current bound tariff rates.  Members have had little opportunity to consider this proposal and I am unable to assess their support.  
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 62  
 
  12. Submission by Small, Vulnerable Economies on Modalities 
Applicable to Non-Agricultural Market Access
56 - JOB(08)/26 (11 April 2008) 
"13. With the exception of developed Members,  those Members having a share of less than 
0.1 per cent of world NAMA trade for the refere nce period of 1999 to 2001 or best available 
data as contained in docum ent TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following modality of tariff 
reduction instead of the formula modality which is  contained in paragra phs 5, 6 and 7 above.  
 
(a)   Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:57  
 
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind all of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an average 
level that does not exceed an overall average of [22 -32] per cent; 
(ii) at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural 
tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall average of 
[18 28] per cent;  and 
(iii) below 30 per cent shall bind all their non-ag ricultural tariff lines at an average level 
that does not exceed an overall average [14-20]  per cent and shall apply a minimum 
line-by-line reduction of [5-10]  per cent on [90-95]  per cent of all non-agricultural 
tariff lines.  
 
Countries which fall under 13 (a)(i), shall no t undertake reduction commitments above 
40 per cent, and those which fall under 13 (a)(ii) shall not undertake reduction 
commitments above 30 per cent. 
 
Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (a)(i). 
 
(b) All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into force of the 
DDA results at initial bound rates.  Fiji shall ha ve the flexibility to maintain 10 per cent of 
non-agricultural tariff lines unbound. 
 
(c) The initial bound rates shall be established as follows:  for bound tariff lines the existing 
bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to this modality will 
determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.   
 
(d) The overall binding target average shall be ma de effective at the end of the implementation 
period as follows:  the tariff reductions shall be implemented in [9 ] equal rate reductions  
10 years .  The first reduction shall be implemente d on 1 January of the year following the 
entry into force of the DDA results and each su ccessive reduction shall be made effective on 
1 January of each of the following years, excep t for lines covered under 13(e) where the first 
reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year following completion of the grace 
period. 
 
(e) For those Recently Acceded Members applying  this modality, a grace period of 3 years shall 
be applied on those lines on which accession commitments are still being implemented.  
This grace period shall begin as of the date  of full implementation of the accession 
commitment on that tariff line.  
 
                                                      
56 Bolivia could not join the proponents of TN/MA/W/100 and therefore is not able to accompany the 
present proposal. 
57 See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 63 
 
 
  (f) All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem  basis.  Existing bindings on a non ad valorem 
basis shall be converted to ad valorem  equivalents on the basis of the methodology outlined 
in document TN/MA/20." 
 
This proposal is based on the Revised Modalities text presented by the Chair of the NAMA 
Negotiating Group, on 8 February 2008, and refers only  to the provisions established for 
Small Vulnerable Economies, without prejudice  to Member’s positions on related issues. 
 
13. Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural Market Access Second Revision - 
TN/MA/W/103/Rev.1 (20 May 2008) 
Small, Vulnerable Economies  
13. With the exception of developed Members,  those Members having a share of less than 
0.1 per cent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best available data as contained in docum ent TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following 
modality of tariff reduction instead of the formula modality which is contained in 
paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above.  
 
(a) Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:
58  
 
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind all of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an 
average level that does not exceed an overall average of [22 - 32]  per cent [or 
shall reduce their average bound tariff by 40 per cent, whichever is the lesser 
reduction]; 
(ii) at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their 
non-agricultural tariff lines at an averag e level that does not exceed an overall 
average of [18-28] per cent [or shall reduce their average bound tariff by 30 per cent, whichever is the lesser reduction];  and 
(iii) below 30 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff lines at an 
average level that does not exceed an overall average [14-20]  per cent  and 
shall apply a minimum line-by-line reduction of [5-10] per cent on 
[90-95] per cent of all non-agricultural tariff lines.    
  Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (a)(i). 
 
 [As an exception, Bolivia shall apply [     ] which shall substantially preserve 
its bound tariff rates]. 
 
(b) All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of the year following the entry into 
force of the DDA results at initial bound rat es.  Fiji shall have the flexibility to 
maintain 10 per cent of non-agricultural tariff lines unbound.   
 
(c) The initial bound rates shall be estab lished as follows: for bound tariff lines the 
existing bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to this modality will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.   
                                                     
 
58 See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 64  
 
   
(d) The overall binding target average sha ll be made effective at the end of the 
implementation period as follows:  the tari ff reductions shall be implemented in 
[9-11] equal rate reductions.  The fi rst reduction shall be implemented on 
1 January of the year following the entr y into force of the DDA results and each 
successive reduction shall be made effectiv e on 1 January of each of the following 
years, except for lines covered under 13(e) where the first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year following completion of the grace period.  
 
(e) For those Recently Acceded Members applying this modality, a grace period of 
3 years shall be applied on those lines on which accession commitments are not 
fully implemented before entry into for ce of the DDA results.  This grace period 
shall begin as of the date of full implementation of the accession commitment on that tariff line.  
 
(f) All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem  basis.  Existing bindings on a non 
ad valorem  basis shall be converted to ad valorem  equivalents on the basis of  the 
methodology outlined in document TN/MA/20. 
 
14. Draft Modalities for Non-Agricultural  Market Access – TN/MA/W/103/Rev.2 
(10 July 2008) 
Small, Vulnerable Economies
 
13. With the exception of developed Members,  those Members having a share of less than 
0.1 percent of world NAMA trade for the reference period of 1999 to 2001 or best available data as contained in document TN/MA/S/18 may apply the following modality 
of tariff reduction instead of the formula moda lity which is contained in paragraphs 5, 6 
and 7 above.  
 
(a) Members with a bound tariff average of non-agricultural tariff lines:
59  
 
(i) at or above 50 per cent shall bind all of their non-agricultural tariff lines at an 
average level that does not exceed an  overall average of [28-32] per cent; 
(ii) at or above 30 per cent but below 50 per cent shall bind all their non-agricultural 
tariff lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall average of 
[24-28] per cent;   
(iii) at or above 20 per cent but below 30 shall bind all their non-agricultural tariff 
lines at an average level that does not exceed an overall average 18 per cent;  and 
(iv) below 20 per cent, shall apply a minimum line-by-line reduction of 5 per cent on 
95 per cent of all non-agricultural tariff lin es or bind at the overall average that 
would result from that line-by-line reduction.    
 As an exception, Fiji shall be deemed to fall under (a)(i). 
 
                                                      
59 See document TN/MA/S/4 and Corr.1 for the bound tariff averages of Members.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 65 
 
 
  As an exception, Gabon shall be deemed to fall under (a)(iii) and shall engage in GATT 
Article XXVIII negotiations to reach the overall target average of 18 per cent.  
 
As an exception, Bolivia shall not be requi red but is encouraged to apply the modalities 
in paragraph 13 and shall annually notify the Council for Trade in Goods steps taken to 
progressively implement these modalities.  
 
(b) All tariff lines shall be bound on 1 January of  the year following the entry into force of 
the DDA results at initial bound rates.  As an exception, Fiji shall have the flexibility to 
maintain 10 per cent of non-agricultural tariff lines unbound.   
 
(c) The initial bound rates shall be establishe d as follows: for bound tariff lines the existing 
bindings shall be used, and for unbound tariff lines the Member subject to this modality 
will determine the level of the initial binding of those tariff lines.   
 (d) The overall binding target average sha ll be made effective at the end of the 
implementation period as follows:  the tariff re ductions shall be impl emented in 11 equal 
rate reductions.  The first reduction shall be implemented on 1 January of the year 
following the entry into force of the DDA r esults and each successive reduction shall be 
made effective on 1 January of each of th e following years, except for lines covered 
under 13(e) where the first reduction shall be  implemented on 1 January of the year 
following completion of the grace period.  
 
(e) For those Recently Acceded Members applying this modality, a grace period of 3 years 
shall be applied on those lines on whic h accession commitments are not fully 
implemented before entry into force of th e DDA results.  This grace period shall begin as 
of the date of full implementation of the accession commitment on that tariff line.  
 
(f) All duties shall be bound on an ad valorem  basis.  Existing bindings on a non ad valorem  
basis shall be converted to ad valorem  equivalents on the basis of  the methodology 
outlined in document TN/MA/20. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 66  
 
  VI. COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SE RVICES SPECIAL SESSION 
1. Services – Information Note (November 2005) 
Proponents
:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, 
Nicaragua, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadi nes and Trinidad and 
Tobago. 
 
The two-track process involving the CTD and negotiating groups has therefore 
emerged as the process whereby the objective of framing responses to the trade-related issues 
identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading 
system is being pursued. 
Small Economies have already and will conti nue to demonstrate their engagement to 
the services negotiations including through th e tabling of initial and revised offers. 
Taking the above into consideration, issues of concern to small, vulnerable economies 
should be addressed satisfactorily in the service s negotiations in order for these economies to 
participate meaningfully in the multilateral trad ing system in accordance with their level of 
development, market share, vulnerabilities and economic size and structure, without creating 
a subcategory of WTO Members. 
2. Outline of an SVE position on Possible Elements of a Services Text (23 January 2008) 
Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Domini ca, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, 
Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica,  Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New 
Guinea, Paraguay, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts an d Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines 
and Trinidad and Tobago 
 
I. General Considerations 
 
1. As Small Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) ha ve previously indicated, the co-sponsoring 
delegations are prepared to engage constructiv ely in the exercise of developing a Services 
outcome for the negotiations, although not proponent s of a Services text.  SVEs believe that 
the preparation of a services outcome could be addressed where texts are being developed in 
other areas of the Doha agenda, and where c oncrete progress in Agriculture and NAMA has 
been registered.  In terms of timing, a possible services text should only be tabled after the 
release of final modalities in Agriculture and NAMA have been tabled. 
 2. The process of developing a text should be multilateral, fully inclusive and transparent, with regular open-ended sessions.  The development of a text must moreover 
respect the current architecture of the GATS a nd its positive list approach.  We will therefore 
not support any attempts that propose to bind current levels of market access and national 
treatment, nor to introduce any further notion of benchmarks within these negotiations.  We 
are also not supportive of the desire that some  delegations have to establish a level of 
comparability among the Services, Agriculture  and Non-Agricultural Market Access 
Negotiations (NAMA).  
3. The Hong Kong Declaration and Annex C contain the substantive guidelines and 
outcomes for the conclusion of the Services negotiations through specified Objectives, 
Approaches and Timelines.  As such, we believe  that the level of ambition for the services 
negotiations has already been established, and is  based on a very delicate balance.  With the  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 67 
 
 
  suspension of the Doha negotiations in July 2006, prior to the tabling of a second round of 
revised offers on 31 July 2006, many of the intended objectives and timelines outlined remain 
unfulfilled.  4. SVEs consider that there is a need to be cautious in the preparation of a text in 
services in order not to reopen the delicate balance achieved in th e Hong Kong outcome 
through the negotiating process.  SVEs furthe r consider that the objectives of a services 
outcome at this stage should be related to the unfinished business remaining from the 
July 2006 suspension and shall take into account  developments which have taken place since 
the Hong Kong Ministerial.  
 
5. Based on the general considerations hi ghlighted above, the elements that SVEs 
consider feasible and desirable to include in a possible text in Services to be presented when 
conditions are  met, are the following:-  
II. Possible Elements 
 1. Reaffirmation of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration and Annex C.  2. Dates for the tabling of revised offers  and final schedules, which should reflect 
timeframes developed for the overall round (i .e. no less than 90 days following the 
establishment of modalities and presentation of draft schedules in Agriculture and NAMA 
respectively), and should be in accordance w ith the Hong Kong timelines, including through 
sequencing.   3. Developing country participation in servi ces trade shall be facilitated through the 
liberalisation of market access in sectors and modes of supply of export interest to them, 
particularly as reflected in their specific requests.   4. The process of liberalisation shall take  into account the level of development of 
individual Members both in overall and indivi dual sectors, and accord developing countries 
the flexibilities provided in Article XIX of th e GATS for opening fewer sectors, liberalising 
fewer transactions and extending market access in line with their development situation. 
 5. Within the context of paragraph 5 of A nnex C and the mandate to develop disciplines 
on domestic regulation, a factual account of  the progress attained, should be registered. 
 
6. For GATS Rules, a factual account of the stat e of play should be registered as well as 
the need for continued focused  discussions in this area.  
 7. Further to the mandate of paragraph 7 of Annex C,  recognition of the number of 
collective requests established, the number of  participants, and the number of meetings 
undertaken, may be provided.   
 
8. Reflection of paragraph 8 of Annex C:   Members shall continue to give due 
consideration to proposals on trade re lated concerns of small economies. 
 9. Revised timelines should also be deve loped for the operationalisation of LDC 
Modalities prior to the tabling of final offers as provided in paragraph 11 e) of Annex C. 
 10. S&D proposals should be addressed with appropriate recommendations to the General Council. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 68  
 
   
11. The importance of technical assistance and capacity building should be underscored through Members' request to the Secretariat to provide a report of targeted technical assistance, and providing further guidance, if required.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 69 
 
 
  VII. WORKING PARTY ON DOMESTIC REGULATION 
1. Services - Trade-Related Concerns of Sma ll, Vulnerable Economies in the Working 
Party on Domestic Regulation - JOB(06)/66/Rev.2 (10 July 2006) 
Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, 
Nicaragua, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadi nes and Trinidad and 
Tobago.  
Small, vulnerable economies r ecommend that the following elements be included in any 
future disciplines on domestic regulation in services.  
III. RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF SMALL, 
VULNERABLE ECONOMIES 
A. 
GENERAL PRINCIPLES  
 
(i) These disciplines shall not affect nor limit a Member's right to regulate, and 
shall not prevent or prescribe the development and adoption of future 
legislation to meet Members' national policy objectives. 
(ii) Developing country Members shall implement the disciplines that require 
adjustment of existing domestic re gulation and/or the adoption of new 
implementation mechanisms to the extent  consistent with their financial, 
administrative and institutional capabili ties and according to their size and 
level of development.  
(iii) Developing country Members shall be accorded adequate  time frames to 
upgrade their legislative, regulatory, administrative and institutional capacity to implement these disciplines.  Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity-building assistance in order to help developing country 
Members to develop such capacity.  
(iv) These disciplines shall apply to a Member's  measures only to the extent that 
these affect sectors, sub-sectors and modes of supply covered by the respective Member's schedule of commitments. 
(v) These disciplines shall not prevent a Member from establishing measures or 
mechanisms to support the developmen t of regional economic integration. 
B. 
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS  
 
(i) The establishment of qualification requirements by the competent authorities 
shall not be limited to the recognition and verification of specific diplomas, 
test scores or the like, but shall incl ude where possible, the opportunity to 
fulfil such requirements by the recognition and  verification of relevant  
experience and other education methods for establishing a provider's competence to supply the respective services. 
(ii) To ensure that qualification require ments do not in themselves constitute 
barriers to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 70  
 
  building assistance in order to help developing country Members and their 
suppliers meet such requirements. 
C. 
QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES  
 
(i) Fees charged by the competent authorities should not be an impediment in 
themselves to practising the relevant activity.  Developing country Members 
are not precluded from recovering fees where fees are utilised to meet national policy objectives. 
(ii) Procedures for the verification of qua lifications shall be limited to those 
required to establish the minimum qua lifications required for supplying the 
service. 
(iii) Members shall ensure that its competent authorities provide for clear and 
practical mechanisms for recognizing as being comparable, education or 
experience obtained, requirements met, or licences or certifications granted in the territory of another Member.  
(iv) To ensure that qualification proce dures do not in themselves constitute 
barriers to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity building assistance in order to help developing country Members and their 
suppliers meet such procedures. 
D. 
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS  
 
(i) Fees charged by the competent authorities should not be an impediment in 
themselves to practising the relevant activity.  Developing country Members 
are not precluded from recovering fees where fees are utilised to meet national policy objectives. 
(ii) To ensure that licensing requirements do not in themselves constitute barriers 
to trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity building 
assistance in order to help developing  country Members and their suppliers 
meet such requirements. 
E. 
LICENSING PROCEDURES  
 
(i) Members shall ensure that licensing procedures applied by its competent 
authorities are of minimal complexity and entail minimal costs for meeting 
requirements and fulfilling procedures for entry into export markets.  Members may grant reduced licensing and other related fees to service providers from developing country Members.  
(ii) To ensure that licensing procedures do not in themselves constitute barriers to 
trade, Members shall provide technical assistance and capacity building 
assistance in order to help developing  country Members and their suppliers 
meet such procedures. 
F. 
TECHNICAL STANDARDS  
 
(i) Members shall in reasonable time publish a notice in a publication, print or 
electronic, and notify other Members through the Secretariat, of the  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 71 
 
 
  establishment and application of measures relating to national or international 
technical standards relating to services and service providers. 
(ii) Members shall, where requested, grant other Members, especially developing 
country Members, technical assistance on mutually agreed terms and conditions regarding the establishment of technical standards and 
participation in the international sta ndardizing bodies in the area of services. 
(iii) As a matter of good practice, Members involved in the development and 
application of measures relating to pl urilateral standards, and standards 
developed and applied by non-governme ntal standardisation bodies should 
ensure maximum transparency of relevant processes for the benefit of other 
Members.  
G. 
TRANSPARENCY  
 
(i) Members shall ensure access for servi ce suppliers of other Members to 
relevant information on legislative, regulatory and administrative measures 
relating to qualification requirements and procedures, licensing requirements 
and procedures, and technical standards.  
(ii) Members shall ensure the establishment of appropriate, transparent and 
accessible administrative and judicial channels for reviewing decisions. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 72  
 
  VIII.  NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES 
1. Fisheries Subsidies - TN/RL/W/136 (14 July 2003) 
Proponents
:  Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Fiji Is lands, Guyana, the Maldives, Papua New 
Guinea, Solomon Islands, St Kitts and Nevis. 
 
Small vulnerable coastal states therefore seek appropriate special and differential treatment in 
the current negotiations on fisheries subsidies disciplines.  Article 1 of the ASCM shall be 
clarified to explicitly exclude the following from definition of subsidy: 
  
(1) Access Fees and Development Assistance - any development assistance granted to 
small vulnerable coastal states by developed or more advanced developing countries 
to facilitate sustainable management.  
 (2) Fiscal Incentives to Domestication and Fisheries Development - incentives applied 
by small vulnerable coastal states for the development and domestication of their 
fisheries. 
 (3) Artisanal Fisheries - those measures undertaken by governments of small vulnerable 
coastal states to assist their artisanal fisheries sector.   
 
2. WTO Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines – Architecture on Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines - 
TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2 (13 September 2005) 
Proponents
:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Domini can Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana, 
Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevi s, St. Lucia, Solomon Islands and Trinidad 
and Tobago. 
 
16. Small, vulnerable coastal states seek appropr iate special and differential treatment in 
any disciplines on fisheries subsidies.  In this regard the following should not be subject to 
subsidies disciplines: 
(i) Any development assistance to developing coastal states; 
(ii) Assistance to artisanal or small-scale fi sheries.  This requires a consensus on 
the definition of artisanal or small- scale.  Some existing definitions of 
artisanal are based on vessel size in metres, capacity in gross registered 
tonnage (GRT), or area of operation in te rms of proximity to the shoreline.  
We invite discussions on prevailing definitions used by Member States and possible approaches for arriving at a de finition for use in the WTO;  to 
facilitate the discussions, the sponsors of  this paper will share information 
with Members on definitions currently being used in their respective 
jurisdictions; 
(iii) Access fees in fisheries access agreements;  
(iv) Fiscal Incentives - to facilitate the development of capabilities of small 
vulnerable coastal states. 
 17. We propose that the special and differe ntial treatment provisions of the ASCM for 
Least Developed Countries be maintained in future disciplines.   
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 73 
 
 
  3. Special and Differential Treatment in the Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations60:  Views of 
the Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - TN/RL/W/210/Rev.2 (22 June 2007) 
Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, 
Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mauritius,  Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, and 
Solomon Islands. 
 
A. INTERPRETING THE MINISTERIAL MANDATES ON FISHERIES SUBSIDIES  
The Doha Ministerial Declaration  states that " In the context of these negotiations, 
participants shall also aim to clarify and impr ove WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies, 
taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countrie s".   
 
The Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration  noted that there is broad agreement that the Group 
should strengthen disciplines on subsidies in the fisheries sector, including through the 
prohibition of certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and over-
fishing, and call on Participants promptly to undertake fu rther detailed work to, inter alia, 
establish the nature and extent of those discip lines, including transparency and enforceability.  
Appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and 
least-developed Members should be an integral part of the fisheries subsidies negotiations, 
taking into account the importance of this sector  to development priorities, poverty reduction, 
and livelihood and food security concerns:   
 
i. The Co-sponsors of this document are of the view that the Ministerial mandates give 
clear instruction and guidance to negotiators  on the issue of Special and Differential 
Treatment (S&DT) for developing and least developed countries.  The Hong Kong Ministerial mandate specifically reflects the need for S&DT to be an integral 
component of the disciplines and recognises that  the fisheries sector is of importance to 
developing countries for a number of socio-economic reasons.   
 
ii. With this in mind, S&DT must be more than an instrument to assist developing 
countries to implement the emerging rules, but must also allow developing countries the opportunity to take advantage of the na tural resources in their maritime space and 
enhance their level of productivity in the area of fisheries.   
 
iii. In this respect S&DT in the fisher ies disciplines must be more than longer 
implementation periods and must instead support the development of the fisheries 
sector in small, vulnerable economies and their potential trade in fisheries products and must not impede their capacity enhancement,  management initiatives, or the processing 
and value added components of the industry in these economies.   
 
iv. The co-sponsors of this proposal recognise the environmental and sustainability effects 
of over fishing and overcapacity and are willing to examine possible disciplines which seek to minimise environmental and ecological damage so long as they are mutually supportive of the developmental priorities of small, vulnerable economies and other 
similarly situated developing countries.   
 
                                                     
 
60 This document is an attempt to respond to the call of the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules for 
brainstorming on S&DT issues and does not preclude th e co-sponsors of this document from submitting any 
additional proposals on these matters.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 74  
 
  B. 
SHOULD THE PROVISION OF S&DT BE CONDITIONAL ? 
i. The co-sponsors of this document view S& DT as a fundamental principle of all WTO 
Agreements for developing countries and should be accorded without conditions 
attached.  However, the co-sponsors recognise that given the environmental and sustainability element of the fisheries ne gotiations, there have been proposals which 
recommend the provision of S&DT on the basis of the individual country either 
acquiring certain management capacity or on ideas such as status of the fisheries and total allowable catch.  Such conditiona lity would depart from WTO principles for 
according S&DT.    
ii. The co-sponsors recognise that there are wi de divergences between the productive and 
trading capacity of developing countries in th e fisheries sector and in the interests of 
sustainability of the marine resources ar e willing to consider carefully crafted 
parameters for S&DT which could meet this objective.  It is clear however that small, vulnerable economies, LDCs and some othe r developing countries have had such a 
minimum impact on over fishing and overcapac ity that the proposed restrictions on 
these countries would be unduly punitive and would have the detrimental effect of 
impeding the legitimate growth of their fish eries industry, thereby leading to industry 
regression and stagnation.    
iii. An effective management re gime for fisheries is an important component of a country's 
fisheries policy.  However, it must be recognised that not all developing countries, 
especially the SVEs and the LDCs, have the capacity to enact a management regime which can produce statistics, analyse data or secure its waters from IUU fishing to the 
extent that major fishing nations do.  In li ght of this relatively limited capacity, any 
S&DT conditionality in the area of management regimes should not unduly punish 
these countries for their capacity constraints and should be examined in light of their 
relatively small productive and trading share of world fisheries.    
iv. The FAO Code of Conduct has been suggested  as an appropriate guideline for countries 
to follow with regards to their manageme nt regimes and the co-sponsors of this 
document concur that it has many important elements.  However as it is a voluntary 
instrument, the Code of Conduct should not be simply imported into a WTO agreement 
as a binding discipline.  Rather it may be appropriate for developing countries to illustrate the existence of a management plan , either a national management plan or a 
regional management plan.  If the architecture of these plans is found to be significantly 
lacking, the developed countries and interna tional organisations with necessary levels 
of capacity and competence in these areas for improvement should provide technical 
and financial assistance to these developing  countries to enhance their management 
plans.    
v. Environmental criteria such as the level of exploitation of the fisheries species or the 
level of exploitation in certain waters have  been suggested as conditions for developing 
countries to use certain subsidies.  The co -sponsors are concerned about the accuracy of 
data and unwarranted penalisa tion of small economies as a result of the exploitation of 
fisheries species outside of their waters by larger fleets of countries with greater capacity.  The idea of utilising total allowabl e catch as a mechanism is one which must 
also take into account the need to accord flexibility for developing countries as well as 
to safeguard the future growth prospects of their fishing industry.   
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 75 
 
 
  C. ARTISANAL AND SMALL SCALE FISHERIES  
i. The co-sponsors of this document recogni se that there has been a great degree of 
discussion on this issue within the negotiating group.  Despite this, there does not appear to be any agreement on a definition for these types of fisheries nor how they 
should be treated in the disciplines.   
 
ii. SVEs have consistently stated that th eir domestic definitions and practical industry 
realities do not recognise a clear distinction between artisanal and small scale fisheries.  In the majority of cases there is a small profit trade involved in the fisheries and in some cases it is part of a small productive ch ain especially in those countries dependent 
on tourism.  These small fisheries may also  be organised into cooperatives and hence 
there could be an economic component to th e fisheries transactions notwithstanding the 
traditional nature of the fishery and its livelihood and food security aspect.   
 
iii. With this in mind the co-sponsors believe that  any definition of artisanal must take into 
account this economic aspect if it is really to  result in any benefits for the developing 
countries.  It has been recognised however th at a cumulative view of small artisanal and 
small scale fishing fleets may result in certain environmental and sustainability impacts and we are willing to further discuss how this impact can be minimised including 
discussions on the assistance which can be provided by relevant international 
organisations and deve loped country members in this area.   
 
iv. Some proposals have sought to use physical  characteristics for determining artisanal 
and small scale fishing and the co-sponsors ar e of the view that any definition based on 
physical attributes should recognise the following  if it is to take the reality of SVEs 
artisanal and small scale fisheries into account:   
 
• Any definition using the length of vessel should take into account the domestic 
definitions used by SVEs,  
• Allowances should be made for a certain level of modernisation such as engine 
horsepower of up to 300hp, the use of navigation and safety equipment and mechanised fishing gear as improved technology becomes available.   
 
v. Socio-economic considerations must also be taken into account if seeking to define 
artisanal and small scale fisheries such as th e importance of the sector to employment, 
food security, poverty reduction and nutrition.    
vi. The co-sponsors recognise that the issue of "small programmes" has al so been raised in 
the negotiations.  Any treatment for "small programmes" should be a component of the 
S&DT for developing countries and its architecture could be based on a level of 
financial amount, the size of the fleet and/or the share of the country in world fisheries trade.   
 
D. 
OTHER AREAS OF S&DT  
i. The co-sponsors believe that there are other areas in the disciplines where S&DT 
should apply.  These include: 
 
1. appropriate flexibilities for industria l and semi-industrial fishing for SVEs 
2. notification requirements 3. length of time to implement the agreement WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 76  
 
  4. greater opportunity for consultation before any DSB cases 
5. technical assistance and capacity building for enhancing management 
regimes 
 
The co-sponsors of this document are willing to  continue to work with other members 
to find solutions in these areas which take  into account the trade, development and 
environmental elements of the fisheries negotiations.   
 
4. Drafting Proposal on Issues Relating to Article III.4 ("Special and Differential 
Treatment of Developing Country Members" ) of the Fisheries Subsidies Annex to the 
SCM Agreement as Proposed by the Chair in TN/RL/W/213 - TN/RL/GEN/158 
(22 May 2008) 
Proponents
:  ACP and SVEs Groups 
 
6. In line with the above considerations, it is suggested to modify Article III.4 as 
follows:   
 
III.4.1 "Members recognize that devel oping country Members, especially 
least-developed countries and small, vulnerable economies, will face serious 
challenges in complying with the requireme nts of this Annex, in particular as 
regards the conditions and criteria set fo rth in this Article and in Articles V 
("Fisheries Management") and VI ("Notifications and Surveillance").    
 III.4.2 Members recognize that the ability of developing country Members, 
especially least-developed countries and small, vulnerable economies, to 
adopt, implement and sustain measures necessary for complying with the 
requirements of this Annex may depend on the effective and timely provision 
of technical assistance by Members to developing country Members in 
accordance with their demands and needs.  Members recognize that 
developing country Members will have different implementation needs and 
capacities and to this end, developing countries which indicate a need for 
technical assistance shall be provided with such assistance through bilateral 
processes, through new and/or existing WTO technical assistance and support  
mechanisms and through other mechanis ms of relevant international and 
regional organisations.   
 
III.4.3 The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures shall 
establish a Sub-Committee dealing exclusiv ely with issues related to technical 
assistance and support programs under this Annex, specifically as regards  
fisheries management systems and measures related thereto.  The  
Sub-Committee shall coordinate the requests from developing country 
Members for technical assistance and s upport programs and shall review the 
effectiveness of the technical assi stance provided to developing country 
Members.61  The Sub-Committee shall periodically report its findings to the 
                                                      
61 The Sub-Committee, in consultation with the de veloping Member concerned, shall identify any 
additional needs of that Member for technical assistance and every effort shall be made to ensure that appropriate technical assistan ce is provided to that Member.  The role of the Sub-Committee shall not be to 
determine the validity of a developing coun try's request for technical assistance.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 77 
 
 
  Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the Committee on 
Trade and Development.62   
 
5. Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) - Statement on Key Aspects Of Article III of the 
Fisheries Subsidies Annex- TN/RL/ W/226/Rev.5 (22 September 2008) 
Proponents :  Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominica n Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Honduras, 
Jamaica, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, 
and Tonga. 
 
3. Article III on Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT) is a critical element in the 
balance of rights and obligations in the Anne x and although we welcome some elements of 
Article III we remain concerned that some of  the conditionality provisions contained therein 
effectively prevent SVEs from benefiting from exemptions that are consistent with the 
realities of their fisheries, the types of subsidies which these economies offer and the 
developmental path which these countries wish to follow to allow for diversification of their 
economies.   
4. This concern is most pronounced in relation to the need for SVEs to benefit from an 
exemption from the prohibition of subsidies in Ar ticle I.1.c of the Chair's text.  These forms 
of subsidies which include, inter alia , operational costs for fuel, ice, bait, license fees, 
insurance and subsidies for landing, handlin g or in-or near port processing activities are 
exactly the forms of government assistance which SVEs could provide to their fishers.  These 
are the specific forms of assistance which the SVEs have consistently stated should be 
allowed for those economies which have neglig ible or no impact on over fishing or over 
capacity.  In the experience of the SVEs, these forms of operational subsidies are more affordable and manageable for our economies gi ven our small administrations.  Moreover, in 
terms of sustainability aspects, we are able to better monitor and regulate these forms of 
government support unlike capital subsidies (e.g . vessel construction) which are far more 
costly to remove after the fact (e.g. de commissioning schemes).  Subsidies for processing 
activities are also crucial elements of our devel opment trajectories and are consistent with our 
plans to progress into more diverse, value a dded components of the fisheries production cycle. 
5. In formal and verbal submissions to the negotiating group, the SVEs and other 
developing countries have expressed the need  for additional flexibility regarding the 
programmes under Article 1.1.c.  The SVEs have made reference to the need to increase the 
length of the vessel in Article III.2.b.2 to 25 metres to take into account the size of the small scale fishing vessels used in ou r maritime space.  Requests have also been made by 
developing countries to benefit from an ex emption from Article I.1.c subsidies.   
6. Some form of additional flexibility regardi ng Article I.1.c subsidies is necessary if 
these fisheries subsidies disciplines are to have real and practical meaning for the developing 
small island and coastal states of the WTO.  These countries rely on fisheries for diversification, food security and livelihoods, a nd their miniscule share of global trade and 
marine capture fisheries demonstrates that they do not, either individually or cumulatively, impact on over fishing and over capacity.  It is clear to the SVEs that 'one size does not fit all' and that consequently in the context of Article I.1.c subsidies a degree of additional flexibility 
in S&DT is necessary considering the profound importance of fisheries to their national 
socio-economic development;  noting that the SVEs  have not requested a substantial roll-back 
of the fisheries management principles established in Article V.   
                                                     
 
62 Future discussion would be required on the procedures to be followed if a developing country 
member does not receive the reque sted technical assistance.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 78  
 
  7. The SVEs are currently undertaking additi onal technical work with the aim of 
proposing, if necessary and at the appropriate tim e, additional options to take our concerns 
into account in a revised text.  This current document has been tabled in the Negotiating Group to reiterate our needs and to call on th e Negotiating Group to look for appropriate 
solutions to confront these concerns. 
6. Fisheries Subsidies Communication from Barbados on behalf of the SVEs - 
TN/RL/W/242 (7 October 2009) 
Proponents
:  Barbados on behalf of the SVEs 
 
 Statement Delivered by Barbados on Beha lf of the SVEs under Item 15.c of the 
Chair's List of Questions on Fisheries Subsidies.   
 
 We wish to respond to the question by pr omoting what we think is an effective, 
innovative and specific suggestion for treatment for a number of developing countries which have little impact on over fishing and over capacity.  Members are well aware of 
the SVEs commitment to this process and our aim of crafting solutions that meet the 
dual purpose of the mandate:  curbing those subsidies that cause over fishing and over capacity and ensuring that developing countries are able to support their fisheries and attain developmental ga ins from this sector.   
 
 The SVEs have been guided by this Ministerial mandate on the Fisheries subsidies negotiations as well as the Doha  and Hong Kong mandates on SVEs which 
instruct all of us to find appropriate solutions to the concerns of SVEs in all areas of the 
negotiations, including fisheries.   For many years we have consistently  presented our concerns through verbal 
statements in the NG;  through the tabling of a number of proposals;  and through 
constant communication with interested me mbers and the Chair.  We would, in 
particular, draw members' attention to document TN/RL/W/226/Rev.5 dated 22 
September 2008 and co-sponsored by  Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican 
Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Honduras, Ja maica, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Papua New 
Guinea, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenad ines, and Tonga which sets out the rationale 
behind our positions.  We don't want to use valuable time by reiterating these views but 
rather we wanted to bring something new to the table and ensure that we as SVEs craft 
and suggest solutions to meet our problems.   
 
 The SVEs continue to be willing to engage  with the structure of the Chair's text 
and to develop appropriate solutions that can be  incorporated into this structure.  When 
the text was tabled we made it clear that a lthough we appreciated the Chair's attempts to 
develop effective S&DT we, like the majority of developing countries, were not of the 
view that it would provide us with the kind of flexibility and policy space that we 
required.  In addition, for SVEs  in particular, we felt that th e text unduly restricted small 
members who have very little impact on ove r fishing and over capacity.  The mandate 
does not call for a full-scale prohibition on subsidies;  on the contrary it is very clearly 
drafted to focus on those subsidies that lead to over fishing and over capacity.  Although we recognise that it may not always be easy to  determine a causal relationship, or lack 
thereof, between a subsidy and over fishi ng and over capacity, the small size of our 
fleets, our limited financial capacity to subsidize, our small market share in global 
marine capture fisheries production and our small share of total world trade, for us, 
illustrates how unlikely it is that we are th e cause.  For us a sense of fairness must 
prevail.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 79 
 
 
   
 The sustainability of the marine resources is important to us.  Some of our SVEs 
are wholly or largely dependent on fisher ies and tourism and the sustainability of 
natural resources is indispensable.  We belie ve that those countries that have had a 
history of providing unnecessary subsidies and which have proven over capacity in their 
fleets should bare the greatest burden in these disciplines.   
  The reality is that at this stage in our development, some of the SVEs are not in 
a position to offer subsidies for operating costs and boat building and maintenance, 
especially in light of the uncertain economic climate we are in.  On the other hand some 
of us had to provide assistance to our fisher folk for operating costs subsidies during the 
recent increase in the price of fuel.  Therefor e, we need the flexib ility to be able to 
either continue to provide the very small subsidies that we do under the areas covered 
by Article 1.1 a and 1.1 c and to maintain th e policy space to provide them in the future 
if our governments determine that th ere is a developmental need to.   
 
 The Chair's text as it exists does not ta ke into account the size of our vessels, 
many of which are not under 10 metres.  In addition the text does not take into account 
the need to allow our fisher folk to follow highly migratory and straddling stock into the 
EEZs of our neighbours if there is a mutual  agreement between the countries involved.  
Therefore we are recommending an addition to the Chair's text as Article III.2 
(b2) ii which seeks to provide the same treatment for SVEs as is currently provided 
for boats under 10 metres in the Chair's text of Article III.2 (b 2).  In other words, developing countries with a share of world NAMA trade of not more than 0.1 per cent, will be exempt from the prohibition of Article 1.1 a and Article 1.1.c subsidies. 
 
 It is important to point out that we are not suggesting a rolling back of other aspects of the text as we note that there will be an opportunity at later sessions to discuss those matters under Articles 4 to 8.   
  From where have we taken these NAMA figures?  It would be recalled that in 
the NAMA negotiations there is an understanding that developing countries with under 
0.1 per cent of NAMA trade would benefit from additional flexibilities.  The same 
exists in the agriculture negotiations wher e there is a criterion of NAMA trade;  
agriculture trade and world merchandise trad e.  For purposes of consistency we have 
chosen NAMA trade especially as fish is  understood to be a NAMA product in the 
context of the WTO.  We have looked at more fisheries specific criteria but we 
recognised that to negotiate a new listing of countries based on data to which there is no 
agreement, would be difficult and possibly co unter productive.  However, it is important 
to note that when one looks at the fisheries da ta one would find that virtually all of those 
countries have a global fisheries capture production of less than 0.5 per cent and in total the countries with a share of NAMA trade less than 0.1 per cent have a cumulative total 
of less than 3 per cent (2.956).  In addition 28 out of these Members have a share of 
global fisheries catch less than 0.1 per cent each, which we consider miniscule.   
  Although we consider the NAMA data to be appropriate, easily verifiable and 
effective criteria, we are open to hearing suggestions from members on alternative or 
additional criteria.  I should point out at this  stage, that the list of countries we have 
included as falling within the criteria, is taken from TN/MA/S/18 and it should be noted 
that two other members which are classified as RAMS- Cape Verde and Tonga- also have a share of NAMA trade under 0.1 per cent.   In addition, there may be additional WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 80  
 
  countries that had elected not to use the SVEs NAMA solution that would fall within 
the criteria we are using.   
 
 This brings us to the issue as to whethe r the list of beneficiaries would be static 
or dynamic and we are open to discuss this further.  It should be pointed out that the 
treatment of the list in NAMA is static but we are open to suggestions on this matter.   
 
 We have discussed these ideas in a number of bilateral meetings in advance of 
this session and one of the suggestions raised by members was whether the SVEs should look more closely at an Article 27.4 solution.  We have taken this on board and 
examined this but given that we are not seeking a time bound exemption based on 
annual decisions with additiona l criteria and notification res ponsibilities, we believe that 
the solution we have recommended is the mo re appropriate one.  As SVEs we will 
endeavour to accept the transparency and notification requirements for developing 
countries that would be contained in an ev entual agreed text but we do not envisage 
being subjected to any additional transpar ency and notification requirements, time 
bound exemptions or phasing out of programmes given that those are not envisaged for Article 2 subsidies for developed and de veloping countries, for example.   
  We have been really encouraged by  members' willingness to engage on our 
ideas when we met them bilaterally and we hope that you will recognise that the SVEs 
are being constructive and taking the initiative to present a solution that meets our needs 
and priorities.  We believe this solution cau ses minimal dislocation to the text; it does 
not take anything away from any other memb er;  it respects the checks and balances in 
the text which would include Article 4, Artic le 1.2 and Article 6.6 which recognises that 
if a subsidy is thought to be causing over fishing and overcapacity, a member can bring 
this to the attention of the relevant committee.   
  It is important that members understand that this solution will not be relevant 
for all developing countries therefore we have  to work to find additional solutions on 
S&DT that meet the needs of other developing countries because one size is not going to fit all.   
 
 We present these ideas, Chair, for you to consider as you revise your Fisheries text, and to members for their positive consideration.   
 
I. List of non-LDC WTO Developing Co untry Members with Share of World NAMA 
Trade of less that 0.1%  
 
Non-LDC WTO Developing Country 
Members with Share of World NAMA 
trade less than 0.1% (See  Note 1 
below) Share of World NAMA 
trade (Average of period 
1999-2004) Share of global total catch (marine 
wild capture fishing only), Average 
of period 2004 – 2006) (See Note 2 
below) 
Albania  0.017 0.003 
Antigua and Barbuda  0.004 0.003 
Armenia (landlocked) 0.013 n/a* 
Barbados  0.011 0.003 
Belize  0.004 0.005 
Bolivia (landlocked) 0.028 n/a 
Botswana (landlocked) 0.056 n/a 
Brunei Darussalam 0.053 0.003 
Cameroon  0.032 0.077 
Cuba  0.052 0.034  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 81 
 
 
  Dominica  0.001 0.001 
Dominican Rep. 0.063 0.013 
Ecuador  0.098 0.474 
El Salvador  0.044 0.048 
Fiji  0.012 0.050 
FYR Macedonia (landlocked) 0.027 n/a 
Gabon  0.032 0.041 
Georgia  0.012 0.003 
Ghana  0.047 0.370 
Grenada  0.002 0.002 
Guatemala  0.072 0.015 
Guyana  0.008 0.064 
Honduras  0.032 0.018 
Jamaica  0.040 0.015 
Jordan  0.071 0.000 
Kenya  0.041 0.009 
Kyrgyzstan (landlocked) 0.010 n/a 
Macao, China 0.050 0.002 
Mauritius  0.034 0.011 
Moldova (landlocked)  0.013 n/a 
Mongolia (landlocked) 0.012 n/a 
Namibia  0.028 0.645 
Nicaragua  0.018 0.032 
Panama  0.035 0.258 
Papua New Guinea  0.030 0.307 
Paraguay (landlocked) 0.023 n/a 
Saint Kitts and Nevis  0.002 0.001 
Saint Lucia  0.003 0.002 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines  0.002 0.007 
Sri Lanka  0.095 0.242 
Suriname  0.009 0.036 
Swaziland (Landlocked) 0.015 n/a 
Trinidad and Tobago  0.088 0.013 
Uruguay  0.037 0.149 
Zimbabwe (landlocked) 0.030 n/a 
 
(1) Data compiled from WTO document TN/MA/S/ 18, as referenced in Paragraph 13 of 
TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3, December 8. 2008.  The above list is also contai ned in Annex I, TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4, 8 
December 2008. 
(2) Statistics relating to global fisheries catch for the average period 2004-2006 have been directly 
obtained from the FAO upon the request of the SVEs.  Statis tics in relation to share of global fisheries capture 
for the 10 Members referenced as "landlocked" was not available primarily due to these Members being 
landlocked countries, with little marine wild capture fishing activity. 
 * Data Not Available WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 82  
 
  IX. NEGOTIATING GROUP ON TRADE FACILITATION 
1. Regional Approaches to Trade Facilitation:  Enquiry Points - TN/TF/W/129/Rev.2 
(10 March 2008) 
 Proponents
:  Barbados, Cuba, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands. 
 
I. TO BE PLACED IN THE PREAMBLE/INTRODUCTORY SECTION OF A 
POSSIBLE TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT 
 
Small Economies/developing countries which are members of a Customs Union or a 
regional economic arrangement may adopt regional approaches to assist in the 
implementation of their obligations under the Trade Facilitation Agreement including 
through the establishment and use of regional bodies.  
 
II. TO BE PLACED IN THE SECTION ON "ESTABLISHMENT OF ENQUIRY 
POINTS" 
 
Small Economies/developing countries which are members of a Customs Union or a 
regional economic arrangement shall have the option of establishing one or more enquiry points at the regional level.
63  The existence of a notified regional enquiry point would satisfy 
the requirements for the existence of an enquiry point under this current provision. 
 
III. TO BE PLACED IN THE SECTION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND 
CAPACITY BUILDING 
 
Members and the WTO, within its competence,  shall provide technical and financial 
assistance, on mutually agreed terms, to sma ll economies/developing countries to support the 
establishment, modification and maintenance of  these national and regional enquiry points.  
 
Members and the WTO shall consider the advantages of providing assistance to the 
regional body, where one exists within a Cust oms Union or regional economic arrangement, 
which will assist those members in the implementation of their obligations under the Trade 
Facilitation agreement.  
                                                      
63 It is understood that individual Members benef iting from these recommendations will continue to be 
legally responsible and accountable for their individual notifications and other obligations under these 
Agreements.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 83 
 
 
  X. COMMITTEE ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
A. HISTORIC EVOLUTION  
1. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures - G/SCM/W/535 and Add.1 (12 April 2006 and 20 July 2006)64 
 Proponents :  Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, 
St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 
 
 6. The sponsors of this proposal believe that  the objective of "fuller integration of small, 
vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system" (WT/L/579, paragraph 1(d) – 
2 August 2004) could be achieved in part by  reaffirming the Article 27.4 procedures and 
extensions within the context of the provi sions of 14 November 2001, Doha Ministerial 
Decision on procedures for Extension under Artic le 27.4 of the ASCM by granting further 
extensions until the year 2018 . 
 
 7. The sponsors of this proposal submit the following  modification to the procedures set 
forth in document G/SCM/39 and call for the preparation of an addendum detailing 'Procedures for Extensions Under Article 27. 4 for Certain Developing Country Members' 
which would amend paragraph 1(e) of G/SCM/39 to state as follows:  
 
A. ‘Through the calendar year  2018
, subject to annual reviews 
during that period to verify that the transparency and standstill 
requirements set forth in (3) and (4) are being fulfilled, Members of the Committee shall agree to continue the extensions granted pursuant to 1(c)’.  
 8. The extension procedures under Article 27.4 would hence be applicable to all of the 
members and the existing programmes referred to in Annex A in line with paragraph 2 of 
G/SCM/39.  This extension process would be ap plicable from the end of  2007 through to the 
end of 2018  with identical procedures as indicated in G/SCM/39 paragraph 1(f) and 1(g). 
 
2. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 a nd 537) – JOB(07)/4 9 (18 April 2007) 
Proponents
:  Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Jamaic a, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and 
Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. 
 
Statement by Barbados on behalf of the Proponents of W/535 Add. 1  
at the Informal Meeting of the SCM Committee, 8 March 2007  
  
1. This intervention is delivered on behalf  of the proponents of W/535 Add 1. 
                                                     
 
64 While the proponents of G/SCM/W/535 and Add. 1 are small, vulnerable economies, the Committee 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) does not treat this issue as specifi c to small, vulnerable 
economies.  A similar proposal was submitted to the Committee on SCM from the delegations of Costa Rica, 
Jordan, Panama and Uruguay (G/SCM/W/537, G/SCM/W/537/Add.1, Add.2 and Add.3).  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 84  
 
  2. I understand that you wish to structure the discussions today around three areas 
which you have deemed to be key issues within  these discussions and I would hence wish to 
give a brief overview of some of our bilate ral encounters and then make brief comments on 
each subject consistent with the organisation of this session.  
3. At the last informal meeting of the Committee on 15 February we delivered a 
statement that sought to recognise the positive in teraction which we have been having with 
some Members of the Committee and to indicat e the areas where we saw there being some 
form of convergence and also aspects where wo rk was required to bring positions closer 
together.  We are pleased to say that this positive interaction and willingness to engage has 
been maintained although the discussions ar e becoming more precise and substantive in 
nature. 
4. We have also enhanced our interac tion with the W/537 proponents and have 
consequently begun to hold joint bilateral and plurilateral meetings.  The Members we have 
dialogued with continue to express a willingness to  work towards an April conclusion of this 
matter but we do recognise that there needs to be a narrowing of the gap on some key issues. 
5. Before I speak to the issue of the timefram e, which is the first item on the agenda, I 
wish to reiterate on behalf of all of the proponents that in reacting to our proposals and 
concessions it is important to remain cognisant of the reality of our economies, not only in terms of size and vulnerability but also the ability and capacity to enact onerously strict regulations within a relatively sh ort timeframe.  At the last meeting we stated that the aim 
should be to reach a mutually agreeable e nd point without expecting the proponents to 
undertake actions which would unnecessarily increase the burden on our economies and 
governments.  If a straight path can take us to  the same destination as an obstacle course we 
urge members to give considera tion to the unencumbered route.  
6. We shall continue to meet bilaterally and informally and will indeed seek to 
enhance our level of engagement.  During the l ast series of bilateral meetings we held, we 
floated some elements of what we consider c ould form integral components of an eventual 
decision.  The reaction to these elements ranged from clear support for some initiatives, questions and clarifications for others and ca lls for strengthened langua ge and provisions in 
other areas.  The proponents have made what  we consider to be serious and difficult 
concessions but are still faced with not knowi ng exactly what other members would like to 
see in an eventual decision.  Once again we urge members to forward any text or ideas which 
they feel could address their legitimate concerns.  
The Duration of a Possible Extension of the Procedures in G/SCM/39 
 
7. The Committee would recall that we had re quested an extension until 2018 in our 
original proposal of W/535.  Today we are pr epared to make a concession on this aspect of 
the proposal and move to 2015 which is a request for eight years rather than 11 years.  This 
request is consistent with the extension given in the Uruguay Round.  On this issue we should 
indicate that the timeframe is one pillar in this discussion and should be seen as related to the 
other areas of the negotiations such as the c onditions of extension and any commitments 
which the proponents would be requested to undertake beyond that in the original Uruguay decision or in the Doha decision. 
8. We presented this concession during the bilateral meetings and although some 
members indicated that it was longer than envisioned there did appear to be a willingness to positively consider the timeframe in line w ith other conditions of the extension.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 85 
 
 
  Requirements Applicable during the Extended Transition Period 
 
9. On this matter of conditions of the extens ion we remain willing to discuss what the 
priority areas are for members and to receive  clear and specific ideas on what they would 
wish to see integrated into a final decision.   We have expressed a willingness to integrate 
technical assistance into the decision and have pr oposed draft text reflecting this.  We have 
also expressed a willingness to bring our pr ogrammes into conformity with the SCM 
agreement and have also suggested some draft language on this matter.  For us these reflect 
substantial movement from our position in W/535.  Unfortunately other Members were not 
able to meet us halfway on these issues and the proponents are currently re-examining their 
proposals in light of the discussions. 
Whether or not it should be possible for the Members concerned to request another 
extension of the transition period 
 
10. This is a matter that has been raised by some delegations in our informal 
deliberations.  It is clear that this is a ve ry politically sensitive issue for the proponents and 
other parties.  From our perspective it is difficu lt to demarcate this issue from the fact that we 
are small developing countries seeking flexibiliti es and favourable consideration of our trade, 
economic and developmental concerns within a development round.  Any decision on this 
matter has to take these political considerati ons into account.  In any event the proponents 
have taken note of the concerns raised by ot her members although much of our attention will 
be focused on attempting to develop conditions  in the transition period which would be 
acceptable to all members of the Committee. 
11. The proponents extend appreciation to all delegations for their engagement and 
useful suggestions during the bilateral process. 
 
Statement by Barbados on behalf of the Proponents of W/535 Add 1  
at the Informal Meeting of the SCM Committee, 15 February 2007  
 
 
1. This intervention is delivered on behalf of the proponents of W/535/Add.1 and on 
their behalf I wish to express thanks to you and the Secretariat for the work that you have been doing to help us to move this process forward.  
2. In that line I would like to focus on our pe rceptions and interpretations of where we 
stand at present in this process based on the bilate ral, plurilateral and informal interactions we 
have held with a number of dele gations who have expressed particular interest in the proposal.  
We must express sincere thanks to all of t hose Members of the Committee who met with us 
informally and who always came to the ta ble with a willingness to engage on possible 
solutions to the request for an extension.  Th e proponents have taken note of all suggestions 
and concerns and our hope is that we can dul y integrate many of these into a final agreed 
package. We remain open to discussions with any other members with whom we have not yet met. 
3. One of the most important conclusions that  we have been able to draw from these 
encounters is that there is a general consensus to continue and increase the pace of the work 
on the proposal.  The language that we heard in our meetings is no longe r couched in 'ifs' and 
'whys' but rather 'when' and 'how'.  This is an achievement for the proponents and the 
Committee as a whole as it illustrates a willingness to find an appropriate solution and reaffirms the fact that we have all b een negotiating this matter in good faith.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 86  
 
  4. The second equally important assessment is that there is an understanding that a 
conclusion by April is possible and desira ble and members expressed willingness to work 
towards that target date.  The reasons for this are many, the schedule of the formal meeting of 
the SCM in April, the need for investor conf idence and predictability in our economies, the 
need to avoid any form of legal or logistical  complications regarding the phase out period of 
the Doha decision and more importantly and l ogically the fact that we have all worked 
steadily in the introductory phase, and in the Q a nd A procedures and we believe that there is 
enough information and technical work on th e table, and enough scope for a mutually 
beneficial outcome, for April 2007 to be the outer  limits of the timefra me for a conclusion.  
We understand that it is not a difficult task to  convene the SCM in formal session before April 
if the need arises, hence if a resolution can be reached even before the scheduled formal 
meeting, this would be preferable. 
5. Other conclusions that we have drawn from these meetings are that the majority of 
delegations understand our par ticular circumstances and many found the answers provided 
during the question and answer phase as foster ing a greater understanding of the specifics of 
our programmes, the relative 'smallness' of the subsidies offered, and the continued 
importance of these programmes in our domestic reality both from an economic and social 
perspective.  In addition it should be rec ognised that these programmes are in many cases, 
policy responses to advice from international or ganisations that economic diversification in 
SVES is not only necessary, but urgent if we are going to able to integrate into the global 
economy in a sustainable manner.  
6. It is important that we also recognise that some delegations have indicated that they 
have a systemic interest in seeing tightened disciplines on export subsidies even as they 
recognise the relatively low, if not completely absent, trade distorting effects of our programmes.  A few other delegations expr essed concern based on the possible economic 
impact of our programmes on their economies an d we continue to be open and willing to 
explore this matter bilaterally, based on any statis tics or studies that may illustrate that there is 
indeed a problem. 
7. The majority of Members have expressed sa tisfaction with the transparency element 
of the current process and as proposed by th e proponents in W/535, wish to see these 
transparency, standstill, favourability and notifica tion elements maintained.  We completely 
agree that these elements have been worki ng as envisaged in the 2001 decision and would 
hence seek to retain these in a new decision on a further extension.  We are of course willing 
to engage on any specific areas where Member s may feel the transparency and notification 
elements can be improved but we seek Member s' understanding of our capacity constraints in 
this regard. 
8. The issue of the timeframe was one that was widely discussed during our informal 
encounters and it has become clear to the proponents that an extension of 11 years to 2018 
(IE 11+2) has not gained enough traction on whic h to move forward.  The date was proposed 
to coincide with what was originally requ ested by the proponents in 2001 and to take into 
account the importance of these programmes to our developmental trajectory.  In the spirit of 
negotiation and the importance of concluding this process by April, the proponents have 
recognised that there will have to be a compro mise on the issue of the timeframe and we are 
willing to do this with the understanding that we gained during our bilateral meetings, that 
Members would seek to impose stricter cond itions on longer timeframes and less oppressive 
conditions on shorter timeframes.  At this point  therefore we should seek to arrive at some 
consensus on this matter, recognising the interre lated nature of timeframe and any additional 
conditions imposed on the extens ion.  We should reaffirm that we see the two year phase out  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 87 
 
 
  period envisaged in Article 27.4 and in G/SCM/39 as an important component of the decision 
hence we don't believe there is any need to negotiate on those final two years. 
9. On the question of possible conditions of an  extension, there was also a great degree 
of discussion at the informal level on this.  You would recall that the proponents had called 
for the conditions of a future extension to be identical to those in G/SCM/39 as we felt there 
was a general consensus that they were worki ng well.  However, in the spirit of cooperation 
and given the feedback from these bilateral talks we  have realised that there will need to be 
some additional discussion on this issue to acco mmodate the perspectives of all delegations.  
Yet again we seek your understanding of our developmental realities when suggesting any 
possible conditions.  We have had a sugg estion that the proponents could look at 
incorporating a financial cap on the subsid y amount but there appeared to be some 
understanding, even on the part of the members w ho suggested this, that in reality this would 
be difficult to craft and implement and woul d be unduly onerous.  We have heard other 
suggestions such as a cap on the number of bene ficiaries and on the inclusion of language 
which illustrates our intention to make these pr ogrammes compatible with the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  These ar e all concerns that we have taken on board 
and we will continue to analyse them technica lly to determine the practical impact these 
suggestions may have.  The matter of integra ting the provision of technical assistance from 
the WTO Secretariat into an eventual decision to  assist us in this process is a suggestion that 
the proponents would be willing to take on board. 
10. There are some additional comments emana ting from the bilaterals which we would 
like to suggest as guiding principles for this ne xt phase of negotiations.  Unduly harsh, strict 
and unnecessary conditions of extension could prove burdensome on our economies and in an 
environment where development is the key, our call would be for any conditions to be more 
focused on the expected result.  Hence, if l esser conditions could be adopted to achieve the 
same results as harsher conditions, we would strongly recommend that the application of 
manageable conditions be the route taken.  We  believe that conditions can be applied that 
could lead to a resolution for all, without us, as small developing countries, having to 
renounce any legal rights under the SCM or without a process that places unnecessary strain on our capitals. 
11. We also ask that the proponents be rec ognised for their movement on these matters. 
Almost a year ago we proposed what we saw as a simple and workable solution: a 
continuation of the procedures in G/SCM/39 until 2018.  Today we stand ready to move on 
that date of 2018 and we stand ready to incor porate, within limits, certain conditions that 
could seek to give comfort to our partners.  Although as  demandeurs  we recognise that 
ultimately the responsibility of moving this process along will always lie with us, we do admit that it has been difficult to convince our capitals  to move from our proposal in the absence of 
any other clear proposals on the table from others .  However, the signals that we received 
from most of you are clear and we hope that th is meeting will lead to an acceleration of the 
crafting of a new decision for extension of our programmes. 
12. The proponents extend appreciation to all delegations for their engagement and 
useful suggestions. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 88  
 
  3. Procedures for Extensions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/W/535 a nd 537) – JOB(07)/5 0 (19 April 2007) 
SVE Proponents
:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Maur itius, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, 
St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.65 
 
1. This submission is based on docume nts G/SCM/W/5351 of 12 April 2006 and 
G/SCM/W/5372 of 23 June 2006 and is an attempt to reflect the outcome of the various bilateral and plurilateral consu ltations conducted by the proponent s of this submission as well 
as the discussions in the informal and form al Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures which were held over the period of April 2006 to the present.  The proponents are of 
the view that the submission reflects a basi s for a recommendation from the Committee for the 
approval of the General Council. 
2. The submission amends document G/SCM/ 39 of 20 November 2001 by incorporating 
new legal language which seeks to take into acc ount the concerns of those delegations who 
have expressed views during the informal a nd formal process and illustrates substantial 
movement from the proposals contained in G/SCM/W/535/Add.1 and G/SCM/W/537.  This new language can be found in new paragraphs 1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h)  and 1(i) and in footnotes 1, 
2, 3 and 4.  The original language of G/SCM/39 is retained in the text for ease of reference. 
3. The proponents of this submission have not  changed any of the existing language in 
G/SCM/39 but there is the recognition that additional technical work may need to be 
undertaken to appropriately integrate and reconc ile the new elements of G/SCM/39/Rev.1 with 
the rest of the text. 
(e)
 Through the end of calendar year 2007, subj ect to annual reviews during that period 
to verify that the transparency and sta ndstill requirements set forth in 3 and 4 are 
being fulfilled, Members of the Committee shall agree to continue the extension s 
granted pursuant to 1(c).   
(f) During the last year of the period referred to in 1(e), a Member that has received an 
extension under these procedures shall have the possibility to seek a continuation of 
the extension pursuant to SCM Article 27.4, for the pr ogrammes in question.  The 
Committee shall consider any such requests at  that year's annual review, on the basis 
of the provisions of SCM Article 27.4, i.e., outside the framework of these 
procedures.  
(g) If a continuation of the extension pursuant to 1(f) is  either not requested or not 
granted, the Member in question shall have the final two years referred to in the last 
sentence of SCM Article 27.4.  
(e) Through the end of calendar year 2013 subject  to annual reviews during that period to 
verify that the transparency and standstill requirements set forth in 3 and 4 are being 
fulfilled, Members of the Committee shall ag ree to continue the extensions granted 
pursuant to 1(c).  The Member receiving a continuation of the extension of these 
procedures shall benefit from the final two years referred to in the last sentence of 
                                                      
65 Other non-SVE proponents of this document are Jordan, Panama and Uruguay.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 89 
 
 
  SCM Article 27.4 with the calendar years 2014 and 2015 constituting this two year 
phase out period.66   
(f) The Committee notes that the Member receivi ng an extension under these procedures 
shall take all necessary internal steps with  a view to bringing the programmes into 
conformity with Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement before the expiration of the 
extension period.   
(g) During the period January 1 2008 through to December 31 2011 the Member 
receiving the extension under these procedur es shall undertake actions at the national 
level in accordance with the commitmen t in 1(f).  These actions may include 
consultations with relevant government act ors and organisations and any technical 
and/or legal assessments which may need to be undertaken to assist the Member to 
conform with 1(f) as well as a communication to existing or future beneficiaries 
indicating the commitments undertaken in 1(e) and 1(f) of these procedures.  
(h) During the annual transparency and no tification process in 2012, the Member 
receiving an extension under these procedur es shall participate in a mid-period 
assessment held under the auspices of the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.67  During this mid-period assessment the Member shall 
provide information to the Committee on what steps it has taken to date and shall take 
to conform to 1(f).  During the mid-pe riod assessment the Member receiving an 
extension in 1(e) shall also provide an action plan for bringing its export subsidies 
into conformity with Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement.68  This mid-period 
assessment shall take into account the devel opment, financial and trade needs of the 
member as well as its capacity and administrative constraints.69 
(i) The Member receiving the extension unde r these procedures may request the WTO 
Secretariat to provide technical assistance to assist that Member to bring its export 
subsidies into conformity with Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement.   
 
                                                      
66 There shall be no further requests for a continuation of the extension beyond 2015 for the 
programmes contained in Annex 1 of this current decision.  
67 The mid-period review is a transparency exerci se intended to enhance the annual transparency 
process.  
68 This action plan will be submitted for transparency purposes and may contain information as to 
whether legislative changes, administrative amendments or any other procedures are required to bring the 
programmes into conformity with Article 3.1 of the ASCM and whether any of these actions have been 
undertaken.   
69 This will be without prejudice to the commitments undertaken in 1(f) of these procedures.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 90  
 
  4. Chairman's Proposal for the Text of a Draft Decision – JOB(07)/78 (6 June 2007) 
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND 
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
Decision of xx 2007*
 
DRAFT  
The General Council, 
  Having regard  to Articles IV:1 and 2 and IX:1 of the  Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization (" WTO Agreement") and Article 27.4 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  ("SCM Agreement ");  
 
  Recalling that the Members of the Committe e on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures ("SCM Committee" or "Committee"), as directed by the Ministerial Conference70 
have granted, pursuant to the procedures set forth in document G/SCM/39, extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) 
of the SCM Agreement  for the elimination of export subsidies, in respect of certain 
programmes of certain developing country Members;   
 
  Noting the proposals submitted by those developing country Members to extend the 
procedures contained in G/SCM/39;
71  
 
  Recognizing  the economic, financial and development needs, as well as the capacity 
and administrative constraints, of those Members in implementing their commitments 
pursuant to the SCM Agreement  in respect of the elimination of export subsidies; 
   On the basis of  the commitment of those Members to eliminate the export subsidies 
in question not later than 31 December 2015 , with no further requests for extension pursuant 
to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  beyond those foreseen pursuant to this Decision; 
    Emphasizing  that as from the date of adoption of this Decision, the procedures 
referred to herein shall represent the sole and unique basis for any extensions pursuant to 
Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement ;  
 
  Decides  to adopt the following procedures.   
 *It is proposed that the text of the draft decision, once agreed by the SCM Committee, be subject to a 
Committee decision forwarding it to the General Council with the recommendation that it be adopted. 
 
 
PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS PURSUANT TO 
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE SCM AGREEMENT OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD 
UNDER ARTICLE 27.2(b) OF THE SCM AGREEMENT FOR CERTAIN 
DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS 
 
  The SCM Committee shall follow the proce dures set forth below in respect of the 
continuation of extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  ("SCM 
                                                      
70 WT/MIN(01)/17, paragraph 10.6. 
71 See documents G/SCM/W/535 and G/SCM/W/537 and addenda.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 91 
 
 
  Article 27.4") of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement  for certain 
programmes, identified in the Annex.72   
 
1. Mechanism for continuation of extension 
(a) A Member that wishes to seek a continuation, for calendar year 2008, of the 
extension under SCM Article 27.4 for a progr amme listed in the Annex, shall submit 
a request to that effect to the SCM Comm ittee not later than 3 September 2007.  The 
request also shall include a referen ce to the WTO document containing the 
corresponding updating notification covering calendar year 2006, which the Member shall have submitted to the SCM Committee pursuant to 1(d) of G/SCM/39.
73   
(b) Not later than 26 October 2007, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to 
continue the extensions, for calendar year  2008, for programmes listed in the Annex 
in respect of which requests have been s ubmitted pursuant to 1(a) and for which the 
Committee has verified, in its annual review conducted pursuant to G/SCM/3974, that 
the transparency and standstill requireme nts under G/SCM/39 were fulfilled during 
2006.   
(c) As provided for in SCM Article 27.4, the continuation of extensions by the SCM 
Committee pursuant to these procedures shall be  subject to annual reviews in the form 
of consultations between the Committee and the Members receiving continuations of 
extensions.  These annual reviews shall be  conducted on the basis of annual updating 
notifications from the Members in question, as referred to in 2(a).  The purpose of the 
annual reviews shall be to verify that th e transparency and standstill requirements set 
forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled. 
(d) During the period 2008- 2012 , Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to 
continue the extensions pursuant to these procedures , subject to verification through 
annual reviews as provided for in 1(c) that the transparency and standstill 
requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.  The "last authorized period" 
referred to in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall not extend beyond 31 December 2013 , and the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last 
sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall end not later than 31 December 2015 .   
(e) A Member receiving a continuation of an ex tension under these procedures shall take, 
from 1 January 2008, the necessary internal steps with a view to eliminating export 
subsidies under the programme before the end of the final two- year phase-out period 
provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4.  These steps shall include 
consultations with relevant government  bodies and organisations and any necessary 
technical and/or legal assessments, as well as a notification to each beneficiary under 
the programme indicating that no export subsidies within the meaning of SCM 
Article 3.1(a) will be granted or maintained beyond the end of calendar year 2015 .   
                                                     
 
72 The programmes eligible for continuations of extensions under these procedures are programmes 
providing export subsidies in the form of full or partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under SCM Article 27.4 for calendar 
year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.   
73 At the regular meeting of the Committee in April 2007, these Members were reminded to submit 
their updating notifications by 30 June 2007. 
74 The procedures in G/SCM/39 shall cease to be effec tive upon completion of this  2007 annual review.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 92  
 
  (f) A Member receiving a continuation of an  extension under these procedures shall 
provide, for transparency purposes, an acti on plan for eliminating export subsidies 
under the programme, as an integral part of  the annual updating notification submitted 
for the annual review to be conducted in 2011 .
75  As part of this review, the SCM 
Committee shall undertake a mid-period asse ssment of each programme for which it 
has continued an extension under these procedures.  During this mid-period 
assessment, the SCM Committee shall take stoc k of the steps undertaken as of that 
point by the notifying Member pursuant to  1(e), and shall discuss the action plan 
provided by the Member.  
(g) A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures may 
request the WTO Secretariat to provide technical assistance for eliminating export 
subsidies under the programme.   
2. Transparency 
(a) The annual updating notifications shall fo llow the agreed format for subsidy 
notifications under SCM Article 25 (found in  G/SCM/6/Rev.1).  Beginning with the 
updating notifications covering calendar y ear 2008, notifying Members also shall 
provide information regarding the actions they  have taken pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).   
(b) During the annual reviews by the SCM Committee referred to in 1(c), notifying 
Members can be requested by other Me mbers to provide additional detail and 
clarification with a view to maintaining tran sparency in respect of the scope, coverage 
and intensity of benefits (t he "favourability") of the programmes in question 69 and 
the form of the subsidies provided thereunde r; and in respect of the actions taken 
pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).  Any information provided in response to such requests shall 
be considered part of the notified information.   
(c) The provisions in 2(a) and 2(b) regardi ng the submission of updating notifications 
and the conduct of annual reviews shall also apply to the final two-year phase 
out-period provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4. 
3. Standstill 
(a) Through the end of the final two-year  phase-out period provided for in SCM 
Article 27.4, the programmes for which extensions are continued under these 
procedures shall not be modified so as to ma ke them more favourable than they were 
as at 1 September 2001, as specified in the notified information previously submitted 
pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.  The continuation of an expiring 
programme without modification shall not be deemed to violate standstill. 
(b) The verification of standstill in respect of  the scope, coverage and intensity of 
benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes shall be based on the notified 
information referred to in 1(c), 2(a), 2(b) and 3(a).   
                                                      
75 The action plan shall indicate how the Member intends to eliminate export subsidies under the 
programme not later than the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last sentence of 
SCM Article 27.4, including information as to legislative changes, administrative amendments and/or other procedures as may be necessary, and whether any of these actions have been undertaken  or are in the process of 
being undertaken.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 93 
 
 
  4. Product graduation on the basis of export competitiveness  
Notwithstanding these procedures, Articles 27. 5 and 27.6 shall apply in respect of 
export subsidies for which extensions are continued pursuant to these procedures. 
5. [Members listed in Annex VII(b) which reserved rights pursuant to the 
procedures in G/SCM/39]  
To be further discussed in the light of the proposal from Honduras that was considered 
in informal consultations on 4 June 2007.  
6. Final provision 
These procedures shall cease to be in effect  upon the completion of the annual review 
covering calendar year 2015 . 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 94  
 
  5. Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures - Decision of 
the Committee of 13 July 2007– G/SCM/120 (17 July 2007) 
 
 At a special meeting held on 12-13 July 2007, the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures decided to forward the atta ched draft decision to the General Council, for 
consideration for adoption by the Council at its meeting scheduled for 27 July 2007.   
 
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND 
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
 
Draft Decision
 
 
The General Council, 
  Having regard  to Articles IV:1 and 2 and IX:1 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization ("WTO Agreement") and Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures  ("SCM Agreement ");   
  Recalling that the Members of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
("SCM Committee" or "Committee"), as di rected by the Ministerial Conference
76 have granted, 
pursuant to the procedures set forth in document G/SCM/39, extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the 
SCM Agreement  of the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement  for the 
elimination of export subsidies, in respect of certain programmes of certain developing country 
Members;    
 
 Noting the proposals submitted by those developi ng country Members to extend the 
procedures contained in G/SCM/39;77   
  Noting  the terms of paragraph 5 of this Decision;  
 
 Recognizing  the economic, financial and developmen t needs, as well as the capacity and 
administrative constraints, of those Members in  implementing their commitments pursuant to the 
SCM Agreement  in respect of the elimination of export subsidies;   
  On the basis of  the commitment of those Members to eliminate the export subsidies in 
question not later than 31 December 2015, with  no requests for extension beyond those foreseen 
pursuant to this Decision;   
 
 Decides  to adopt the following procedures.   
 
PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS PURSUANT 
TO ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE SCM AGREEMENT OF THE TRANSITION 
PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 27.2(b) OF THE SCM AGREEMENT 
FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS 
 
 The SCM Committee shall follow the proce dures set forth below in respect of the 
continuation of extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  ("SCM Article 27.4") of 
                                                     
 
76 Ministerial Decision on Implementation-Rel ated Issues and Concerns, (WT/MIN(01)/17), 
paragraph 10.6.   
77 See documents G/SCM/W/535 and G/SCM/W/537 and addenda.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 95 
 
 
  the transition period under Article 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement  for certain programmes, identified 
in the Annex.78  
 
1. Mechanism for continuation of extension 
 
(a) A Member that wishes to seek a continuation, for calendar year 2008, of the 
extension under SCM Article 27.4 for a progr amme listed in the Annex, shall submit 
a request to that effect to the SCM Comm ittee not later than 3 September 2007.  The 
request also shall include a reference to the WTO document containing the corresponding updating notification covering calendar year 2006, which the Member 
shall have submitted to the SCM Committee pursuant to 1(d) of G/SCM/39.
79   
(b) Not later than 26 October 2007, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to 
continue the extensions, for calendar year  2008, for programmes listed in the Annex 
in respect of which requests have been s ubmitted pursuant to 1(a) and for which the 
Committee has verified, in its annual review conducted pursuant to G/SCM/3980, that 
the transparency and standstill requireme nts under G/SCM/39 were fulfilled during 
2006.   
(c) As provided for in SCM Article 27.4, the continuation of extensions by the 
SCM Committee pursuant to these procedures shall be subject to annual reviews in the form of consultations between th e Committee and the Members receiving 
continuations of extensions.  These annual re views shall be conducted on the basis of 
annual updating notifications from the Members in question, as referred to in 2(a).  
The purpose of the annual reviews shall be to verify that the transparency and standstill requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.   
(d) During the period 2008-2012, Members of the SCM Committee shall agree to 
continue the extensions pursuant to these procedures , subject to verification through 
annual reviews as provided for in 1(c) that the transparency and standstill 
requirements set forth in 2 and 3 are being fulfilled.
81  The "last authorized period" 
referred to in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall not extend beyond 
31 December 2013, and the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last 
sentence of SCM Article 27.4 shall end not later than 31 December 2015.   
(e) A Member receiving a continuation of an ex tension under these procedures shall take, 
from 1 January 2008, the necessary internal steps with a view to eliminating export 
subsidies under the programme before the end of the final two-year phase-out period 
provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4.  These steps shall include 
consultations with relevant government  bodies and organisations and any necessary 
technical and/or legal assessments.  In addition, from 1 January 2008 and in no case 
later than 31 December 2009, the Member shall notify each beneficiary under the 
programme indicating that no export subsidies within the meaning of 
                                                      
78 The programmes eligible for continuations of extensions under these procedures are programmes 
providing export subsidies in the form of full or partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under SCM Article 27.4 for calendar 
year 2007 pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.   
79 At the regular meeting of the Committee in April 2007, these Members were reminded to submit 
their updating notifications by 30 June 2007.   
80 The procedures in G/SCM/39 shall cease to be effec tive upon completion of this  2007 annual review.   
81 This extension mechanism shall cease to be effec tive upon completion in 2012  of the annual review 
by the Committee to continue the extensions for calendar y ear 2013, such that there will be no basis for requests 
for extension beyond those foreseen in this Decision.   WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 96  
 
  SCM Article 3.1(a) will be granted or  maintained beyond the end of calendar 
year 2015.   
(f) A Member receiving a continuation of an  extension under these procedures shall 
provide, for transparency purposes, an action plan for eliminating export subsidies under the programme, as an integral pa rt of the annual updating notification 
submitted for the annual review  to be conducted in 2010.
82  As part of this review, the 
SCM Committee shall undertake a mid-period assessment of each programme for which it has continued an extension under these procedures.  During this mid-period 
assessment, the SCM Committee shall take st ock of the steps undertaken as of that 
point by the notifying Member pursuant to  1(e), and shall discuss the action plan 
provided by the Member.   
(g) A Member receiving a continuation of an extension under these procedures may 
request the WTO Secretariat to provide technical assistance for eliminating export subsidies under the programme.   
2. Transparency  
 
(a) The annual updating notifications shall fo llow the agreed format for subsidy 
notifications under SCM Article 25 (found in  G/SCM/6/Rev.1).  Beginning with the 
updating notifications covering calendar y ear 2008, notifying Members also shall 
provide information regarding the actions they  have taken pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).   
(b) During the annual reviews by the SCM Committee referred to in 1(c), notifying 
Members can be requested by other Me mbers to provide additional detail and 
clarification with a view to maintaining tran sparency in respect of the scope, coverage 
and intensity of benefits (the "favour ability") of the programmes in question
83 and the 
form of the subsidies provided thereunder;   and in respect of the actions taken 
pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f).  Any informati on provided in response to such requests 
shall be considered part of the notified information.   
(c) A Member receiving a continuation of an  extension under these procedures shall 
ensure transparency in respect of the fi nal two-year phase-out period provided for in 
the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4 by submitting updating notifications under 
paragraph 2(a), which shall be subject to annual review by the Committee.   
3. Standstill 
 
(a) Through the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in 
SCM Article 27.4, the programmes for whic h extensions are continued under these 
procedures shall not be modified so as to ma ke them more favourable than they were 
as at 1 September 2001, as specified in the notified information previously submitted 
pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.  The continuation of an expiring 
programme without modification shall not be deemed to violate standstill.   
                                                      
82 The action plan shall indicate how the Member intends to eliminate export subsidies under the 
programme not later than the end of the final two-year phase-out period provided for in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4, including information as to legisla tive changes, administrative amendments and/or other 
procedures as may be necessary, and whether any of these actions have been undertaken  or are in the process of 
being undertaken, including how the individual beneficiaries have been notified pursuant to 1(e). 
83 The scope, coverage and intensity of benefits of the programmes in question will be determined on 
the basis of the legal instruments underlying the programmes.    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 97 
 
 
  (b) The verification of standstill in respect of  the scope, coverage and intensity of 
benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes shall be based on the notified 
information referred to in 1(c), 2(a), 2(b) and 3(a).   
4. Product graduation on the basis of export competitiveness 
 
Notwithstanding these procedures, Articles 27.5 and 27.6 shall apply in respect of export 
subsidies for which extensions are con tinued pursuant to these procedures.   
5. Members listed in Annex VII(b) which reserved rights pursuant to the procedures in 
G/SCM/39 
 
(a) This Decision does not prejudge rights of Annex VII Members. 
(b) If, during the period 2008-2015, the per capita  GNP of a Member that reserved rights 
under paragraph 6(b) of G/SCM/3984 reaches the level provided for in Annex VII(b) 
of the SCM Agreement  such that the Member is no lo nger included in Annex VII(b), 
that Member shall be able to make use of these procedures as from the date at which 
its per capita GNP reaches that level and for the remainder of that period.  The 
effective date for the standstill requirement re ferred to in 3(a) shall be the year in 
which that Member's GNP per capita reach es the level provided for in Annex VII(b) 
such that it is no longer in cluded in Annex VII(b).   
  
 
    
 
   
                                                     
 
84 The Members that reserved rights, and the programmes in respect of which these rights were 
reserved, are identified in documents G/SCM/N/74/ BOL & Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/74/HND, G/SCM/N/74/KEN, 
and G/SCM/N/74/LKA. 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 98  
 
  ANNEX 
  
LIST OF PROGRAMMES ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS  
UNDER THE PROCEDURES
85, AND DOCUMENT REFERENCES FOR THE  
EXTENSION DECISIONS BY THE SCM COMMITTEE  
COVERING CALENDAR YEAR 2007  
  Antigua & Barbuda  
• Fiscal Incentive Act Cap 172 (December 1975) (G/SCM/50/Add.4) 
• Free Trade and Processing Zone Act No. 12 of 1994 (G/SCM/51/Add.4) 
 
Barbados  
• Fiscal Incentive Programme (G/SCM/52/Add.4) 
• Export Allowance (G/SCM/53/Add.4) 
• Research & Development Allowance (G/SCM/54/Add.4) 
• International Business Incentives (G/SCM/55/Add.4) 
• Societies With Restricted Liability (G/SCM/56/Add.4) 
 
Belize  
• Fiscal Incentives Act (G/SCM/57/Add.4) 
• Export Processing Zone Act (G/SCM/58/Add. 4) 
• Commercial Free Zone Act (G/SCM/59/Add.4) 
• Conditional Duty Exemptions Facility under Treaty of Chaguaramas (G/SCM/60/Add.4) 
 
Costa Rica  
• Free Zone Regime (G/SCM/61/Add.4) 
• Inward Processing Regime (G/SCM/62/Add.4) 
 
Dominica  
• Fiscal Incentives Programme (G/SCM/63/Add.4) 
                                                     
 
85 Programmes for which the SCM Committee continued extensions of the transition period under 
SCM Article 27.4 for calendar year 2007 pursuant to th e procedures in G/SCM/39.  It is recalled that the 
eligibility criteria in G/SCM/39 on the basis of which the original extension decisions pursuant to those 
procedures (for calendar year 2003) were taken for the listed programmes were as follows (footnotes omitted):   
 
"Programmes eligible for extension pursuant to these procedures, and for which Members shall 
therefore grant extensions for calendar year 2003 [...], are expor t subsidy programmes (i) in the form of full or 
partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes, (ii) which were in existence not later than 1 September 
2001, and (iii) which are provided by developing country Members (iv) whose share of world merchandise 
export trade was not greater than 0.10 per cent, (v) whose total Gross National Income ("GNI") for the year 
2000 as published by the World Bank was at or below US$20 billion, (vi) and who are otherwise eligible to 
request an extension pursuant to Article 27.4, and (vii) in respect of which these procedures are followed."   
 It is further recalled that, in respect of the above eligibility criteria, G/SCM/39 also provided that:   
 
"The criteria set forth in these procedures are solely  and strictly for the purpose of determining whether 
Members are eligible to invoke these procedures.  Members of the Committee agree that these criteria have no 
precedential value or relevance, direct or indirect, for any other purpose."    WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 99 
 
 
  Dominican Republic  
• Law No. 8-90 to "Promote the Establishment of New Free Zones and Expand Existing Ones"  
(G/SCM/64/Add.4) 
 
El Salvador  
• Export Processing Zones and Marketing Act, as amended (G/SCM/65/Add.4) 
 
Fiji 
• Short-Term Export Profit Deduction (G/SCM/66/Add.4) 
• Export Processing Factories/Export Processing Zones Scheme (G/SCM/67/Add.4) 
• The Income Tax Act (Film Making and Audio Visual Incentive Amendment Decree 2000) 
(G/SCM/68/Add.4) 
 
Grenada  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 41 of 1974 (G/SCM/69/Add.4) 
• Statutory Rules and Orders No. 37 of 1999 (G/SCM/70/Add.4) 
• Qualified Enterprises Act No. 18 of 1978 (G/SCM/71/Add.4) 
 
Guatemala  
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duti es and Other Import Taxes for Companies 
under Special Customs Regimes (G/SCM/72/Add.4) 
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production 
Process Relating to Activities of Managers and Users of Free Zones (G/SCM/73/Add.4) 
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production 
Process of Commercial and Industrial Enterprises Operating in the Industrial and Free Trade 
Zone (G/SCM/74/Add.4) 
 
Jamaica  
• Export Industry Encouragement Act (G/SCM/75/Add.4) 
• Jamaica Export Free Zone Act (G/SCM/76/Add.4) 
• Foreign Sales Corporation Act (G/SCM/77/Add.4) 
• Industrial Incentives (Factory Construction) Act (G/SCM/78/Add.4) 
 
Jordan  
• Partial or Total Exemption from Income Tax of Profits Generated from Exports under Law 
No. 57 of 1985, as amended (G/SCM/79/Add.4) 
 
Mauritius  
• Export Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/80/Add.4) 
• Pioneer Status Enterprise Scheme (G/SCM/81/Add.4) 
• Export Promotion (G/SCM/82/Add.4) 
• Freeport Scheme (G/SCM/83/Add.4) 
 
Panama  
• Official Industry Register (G/SCM/84/Add.4 
• Export Processing Zones (G/SCM/85/Add.4) 
 
Papua New Guinea  
• Section 45 of the Income Tax (G/SCM/86/Add.4) 
 WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 100  
 
  St. Kitts and Nevis  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 17 of 1974 (G/SCM/90/Add.4) 
 
St. Lucia  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 15 of 1974 (G/SCM/87/Add.4) 
• Free Zone Act, No. 10 of 1999 (G/SCM/88/Add.4) 
• Micro and Small Scale Business Enterprises Ac t, No. 19 of 1998 (G/SCM/89/Add.4) 
 
St. Vincent & Grenadines  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 5 of 19 82, as amended (G/SCM/91/Add.4) 
 
Uruguay  
• Automotive Industry Export Promotion Regime  (G/SCM/92/Add.4) 
 
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 101 
 
 
  XI. AID FOR TRADE TASK FORCE 
1. Aid for Trade - WT/AFT/W/18 (15 June 2006) 
 Proponent :  Barbados 
 
 III. SCOPE FOR AFT   
 9. In general, AFT should cover the following:   
• Trade Policy and Regulations, (i.e. regional and multilateral negotiations, 
standards, implementation of trade ag reements, trade policy and planning);  
 
• Trade-Related Infrastructure (i.e. transport and storage, communications, energy, 
trade facilitation, etc);  
 
• Trade Development (i.e. trade  promoti on strategy and implementation, market 
analysis and development);  
 
• Productive Supply-Side Constraints, (i.e. banking and financial services, research 
and development and innovation; busin ess and other services, agriculture, 
forestry, fishing, industry and mining, tourism etc.);  and  
 
• Trade Adjustment (abnormal adjustment  resulting from severe adverse trade 
shocks). 
  IV. PRIORITY AREAS FOR INTERVENTION 
 
 A. TRADE
 POLICY  AND  REGULATIONS 
  B. 
TRADE ADJUSTMENT  
  C. 
TRADE -RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE  
 
 D. TRADE DEVELOPMENT  
  E. 
PRODUCTIVE SUPPLY -SIDE CONSTRAINTS  
 
V. A PRIVATE SECTOR AID FOR TRADE PROGRAMME 
  29. A special effort should be made to ensu re the involvement of the private sectors in 
both developed and developing countries a nd to connect them to each other. 
 
 30. The scope of a Private Sector Aid Fo r Trade Programme should relate to activities 
capable of supporting private sector efforts to e xport.  The identification of gaps in current 
Official Development Assistance in the trade-related field would be an appropriate starting point. 
  31. The delivery and monitoring of Private Sector AFT programmes should be vested in 
an organization agreed between interested mu ltilateral and bilateral donor agencies and sector 
specific representative institutions on a country basis or, where appropriate, on a regional 
basis. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 102  
 
   
 32. AFT participants should aim for a feasibl e programme of assistance that is based on 
professional diagnostic studies and needs assess ments and on arrangements for a monitoring 
system using mutually agreed benchmarks.  Improving coherence and coordination of action 
among multiple donors should also be part of this approach.  
 
 33. An existing international trade-related organization that has a comparative advantage 
in this field, and also enjoys the confidence of developing countries, should be given responsibility for managing the programme.  On the recipient side, the executing agency could be the agreed representative ins titution such as regional development banks. 
 
 VI. VOLUME AND NATURE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT   A. 
MOBILIZING ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES  
 
 34. According to the paragraph 57 mandate , additional funding is required.  Between 
1994-2004, development aid has been decreasing as debt relief became an increasing part of 
ODA.  It would be important therefore that curre nt aid budgets are not depleted in order to 
support AFT but rather additional resources w ould be tapped to add "new money" to ODA 
budgets.  
 
 35. The pledges so far for 2010 are promising but the challenge remains to realize 
additionality.  In this respect, it is essential that in finalizing commitments to the provision of 
these resources that long-term sustainability of  the AFT process and predictability in the 
provision of funds are assured. 
 
 B. NATURE  OF AFT  FINANCIAL  SUPPORT 
 
36. In order to avoid an increase in the debt burden of developing countries, particularly 
LDCs and small, vulnerable de veloping countries, aid-for-tra de financial support should be 
provided primarily in the form of grants.  However, for certain high cost physical infrastructure projects, these could be co-fina nced with long-term concessional loans from 
other multilateral financial ins titutions (e.g., regional deve lopment banks and the World 
Bank).  Such loans should be on terms no less favourable than those of IDA or IFAD. 
  37. Funding should also not involve any burdensome conditionalities.  The latter should 
be limited to monitoring and governance. 
 
 38. With regard to the financial instrument s, there is as much a need for budgetary 
support that is available for sector-wide approaches on a multi-annual basis, as for specific "project financing".  Budgetary support in situations of fiscal imbalance and 
balance-of-payments deficit ensures macroec onomic stability through quicker disbursement 
and a focus on the areas of adjustment most in n eed.  It facilitates the development of projects 
by ensuring the correct macroeconomic environment. 
  C. 
DURATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF AFT FUNDING  
  39. The problems related to supply-side capac ity and trade-related infrastructure must be 
tackled on a sustainable basis.  This essentially implies that projects must be developed and 
implemented over many years and be funded on a multi-year basis.  AFT funds would 
therefore have to be replenished periodically acco rding to an agreed schedule, and procedures 
would have to be established to ensure this. 
  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 103 
 
 
   40. Access to these funds would also have  to be guaranteed and predictable, and to 
achieve this purpose, some agreement between  donors and recipients would be needed to 
provide such security.  In this context, some c onsideration could be given to strengthening the 
role of multilateral sources in the provision of the a dditional resources. 
 
 VII. MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE OF AFT  
  A. 
MONITORING MECHANISM  
  41. The role of the WTO in monitoring and evaluating performance of AFT programmes 
should be paramount, and this responsibility c ould be assigned to its highest Council and its 
subsidiary bodies (particularly the Committ ee on Trade and Development).  The Joint 
WTO/OECD Database on TRTA/CB already constitu tes a useful monitoring tool which could 
be further enhanced by improved supervision of  the collection and processing of information.  
In addition, a mechanism would be needed to assess the impact of AFT.  Monitoring should 
permit the involvement of recipients, donors and other interested parties. 
  B. 
GOVERNANCE MECHANISM  
 
42. The wide range of bilateral, regional and multilateral mechanisms now in operation 
would suggest that the AFT governance mechan ism should first explore the comparative 
advantage of existing institutions and seek to improve functioning where gaps exists.  
  43. Several forms of assistance suffer from insufficient resources as well as a lack of 
coordination between the institutions managi ng the projects.  These weaknesses should be 
avoided in AFT. 
 
 44. There is need for credible mechanis ms for delivering AFT and ways of improving 
existing national and regional mechanisms mu st be found.  Regional development banks 
should play a key role in this area. 
  45. Any governance structure should ensure WTO involvement as well as provide for 
adequate coordination where gaps have been ob served.  The effective participation of WTO 
Members or their representatives – which agai n could be the regional development banks 
should be assured.  It should also draw into  the process international and regional financial 
agencies, the private sector, bilateral donors along w ith experts, and other interested parties.  
There should be an agreed administrative frame work with agreed principles of management 
and allocation of funds. Institutiona l conditionalities should be avoided. 
  C. 
ELIGIBILITY  
 
46. In terms of country coverage, AFT s hould address the relevant needs of all WTO 
developing-country Members with priority to LDCs, SVEs and acceding small developing 
countries. 
  VIII. PROCESSES TO IDENTIFY TRADE-RELATED NEEDS AT THE INDIVIDUAL 
COUNTRY LEVEL 
 
47. In view of the wide variation in countr y situations, a country-specific approach to 
needs assessment will be necessary in order to identify both the priority needs of individual 
countries and the additional assistance required in e ach case.  This effort should take into 
account the needs of the private sector.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 104  
 
  48. For countries that are part of a regiona l integration scheme and would wish their 
national approaches to be complimented by a regional needs assessment approach, the latter 
should also be undertaken. 
49. Aid for trade should allow policy flexib ilities and national ownership as mandated in 
the Paris Declaration of June 2005.  Adopted at the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness 
(March 2005) the Paris Declaration on Aid E ffectiveness has been prepared with broad 
participation from development practitioners , through a process coordinated by the 
High-Level Forum Steering Committee.  The decl aration outlines a set of joint commitments 
and targets for governments and multilateral donor s to reach over the next five years.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 105 
 
 
  XII. COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED SESSION ON 
SMALL ECONOMIES 
1. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade:  Designation of a Regional Body – 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15 (18 October 2005) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbud a, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, 
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines  
 3. Proposals 
 
4. Recognising the contribution that in ternational standards and conformity 
assessment systems can have in improving efficiency of production and facilitating the conduct of international trade, the General Council is to recommend to the 
Ministerial Conference that there shall be explicit recognition of Members' rights to 
designate a regional body to provide such technical support as is necessary to assist 
them in fulfilling their obligations under  the TBT Agreement.  Members and the 
WTO, within its competence, shall provide the technical and financial assistance required to enable these small, vulnerabl e economies to fulfil their objectives under 
this Agreement.  
2. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures:  Designation of 
a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/16 (18 October 2005) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbud a, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, 
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines  
 3. Proposals 
 
4. Recognising the special difficulties enc ountered by the co-sponsors of this 
proposal in complying with SPS measures, a nd as a consequence in access to markets, 
and also in the formulation and application of SPS in their own territories, the General Council is to recommend to the Ministerial Conference that there shall be explicit recognition that WTO Members ma y designate a regional body to provide 
technical support as is necessary and to carry out the functions necessary to assist 
them in implementing the provisions of the SPS Agreement.  Members and the WTO, within its competence, shall provide the tec hnical and financial assistance required to 
enable these small, vulnerable economie s to fulfil their objectives under this 
Agreement.  
3. Accession to the WTO - WT/COMTD/SE/W/17 (18 October 2005) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbud a, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, 
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines  3. Specific Proposals 
 
3. It should be agreed that, in both the negotiations on rules in accession 
Working Parties and in the negotiations  on market access commitments, acceding 
small, vulnerable economies will only be required to undertake commitments WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 106  
 
  commensurate with their level of development.   In determining the terms of reference 
for accession Working Parties, appropriate consideration should be given to the 
specific characteristics and vulnerabilities of acceding small, vulnerable economies. 
4. It should also be agreed that if a party to the negotiations on the accession of 
any applicant country considers that the te rms of reference of the relevant Working 
Party are not being observed, it may request the establishment of a panel.  This panel 
would be appointed by the Director-General from a roster of independent experts, to 
examine the case and report with recommendati ons to the General Council/Ministerial 
Conference. 
4. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement:  Designation of a Regional Body 
– WT/COMTD/SE/W/18 (18 October 2005) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbud a, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, 
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines  
 3. Proposals 
 
4. Recognising the underlying public policy objectives of national systems for 
the protection of intellectual property, including developmental and technological 
objectives, and also the need to enable th ese small, vulnerable economies to create a 
sound and viable technological base, the General Council is to recommend to the 
Ministerial Conference that there shall be explicit recognition of Members' rights to 
designate a regional body to provide such technical support as is necessary to assist them in fulfilling their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  Members and the WTO, within its competence, shall provide the technical and financial assistance required to enable these small, vulnerabl e economies to fulfil their objectives under 
this Agreement.  
5. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade:  Designation of a Regional Body – 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.1 (10 April 2006) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbud a, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, 
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines 
 
 3. Proposals 
 
4. Recognising the contribution that in ternational standards and conformity 
assessment systems can have in improving efficiency of production and facilitating 
the conduct of international trade, the General Council is to recommend to the 
Ministerial Conference that there shall be explicit recognition of Members' rights to 
designate a regional body to provide such technical support as is necessary to assist them in fulfilling their obligations under  the TBT Agreement.  Members and the 
WTO, within its competence, shall provide technical and financial assistance at mutually agreed terms to support small, vulnerable economies in fulfilling their rights 
and obligations under this agreement.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 107 
 
 
  6. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures:  Designation of 
a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.1 (10 April 2006) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbud a, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, 
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines 
 
 3. Proposals 
 
4. Recognising the special difficulties enc ountered by the co-sponsors of this 
proposal in complying with SPS measures and,  as a consequence in access to markets 
and also in the formulation and application of SPS in their own territories, the 
General Council is to recommend to the Ministerial Conference that there shall be explicit recognition that WTO Members ma y designate a regional body to provide 
technical support as is necessary and to carry out the functions necessary to assist them in implementing the provisions of the SPS Agreement.  Members and the WTO, 
within its competence, shall provide techni cal and financial assistance at mutually 
agreed terms to support small, vulnerabl e economies in fulfilling their rights and 
obligations under this agreement. 
7. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement:  Designation of a Regional 
Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.1 (10 April 2006) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbud a, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, 
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines  
 3. Proposals 
 
4. Recognising the underlying public policy objectives of national systems for 
the protection of intellectual property, including developmental and technological 
objectives, and also the need to enable th ese small, vulnerable economies to create a 
sound and viable technological base, the General Council is to recommend to the 
Ministerial Conference that there shall be explicit recognition of Members' rights to 
designate a regional body to provide such technical support as is necessary to assist 
them in fulfilling their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  Members and the 
WTO, within its competence, shall provide technical and financial assistance at mutually agreed terms to support small, vulnerable economies in fulfilling their rights and obligations under this agreement. 
8. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade:  Designation of a Regional Body – 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.2 (18 July 2006) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbud a, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, 
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines  
 3. Proposals 
 
4. Recognising the contribution that in ternational standards and conformity 
assessment systems can have in improving efficiency of production and facilitating the conduct of international trade, the Ge neral Council is to recommend that there 
shall be explicit recognition of Members' rights to designate a regional body to WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 108  
 
  provide technical support
86 as is necessary to assist them in implementing the 
provisions of the TBT Agreement.  
5. Members and the WTO, within its co mpetence, when providing technical and 
financial assistance to support small, vuln erable economies in fulfilling their rights 
and obligations under this Agreement, shall consider the advantages of providing that 
assistance to the regional body, where such exists. 
 4. Issues for Consideration 
 
6. The co-sponsors of this proposal are of the view that this explicit recognition 
of regional bodies would lead to greater lega l certainty.  In addition, it would lead to 
an improvement in levels of transparency  and predictability thereby enhancing the 
ability of SVEs to fulfil their legal and notif ication obligations arising out of the TBT 
Agreement.  
7. It should be further noted that this proposal does not seek to change the legal 
architecture of the TBT Agreement nor would it impact on the balance of rights and 
obligations of any WTO Member.  In a ddition, the individual Members benefiting 
from this proposal will continue to be lega lly responsible and accountable for their 
individual obligations which include notifications. 
9. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures:  Designation of 
a Regional Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.2 (18 July 2006) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbud a, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, 
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines  
 3. Proposals 
 
4. Recognising the special difficulties enc ountered by the co-sponsors of this 
proposal in complying with obligations under the SPS Agreement, the resulting difficulties in accessing markets and the complexity of the formulation and application of SPS measures for their domes tic markets, the General Council is to 
recommend that there shall be explicit r ecognition that WTO Members may designate 
a regional body to provide technical support
87 as is required to carry out the functions 
necessary to assist them in implementing the provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
5. Members and the WTO, within its co mpetence, when providing technical and 
financial assistance to support small, vuln erable economies in fulfilling their rights 
and obligations under this Agreement, shall consider the advantages of providing that 
assistance to the regional body, where such exists. 
                                                      
86 Such technical support could include the development of TBT measures;  assistance in the 
preparation of TBT notifications;  assi stance with the response to any queries received on the notifications;  and 
any analysis or research that would enha nce the understanding of the TBT obligations. 
87 Such technical support could include the deve lopment of SPS measures;  assistance in the 
preparation of SPS notifications;  assistance with the re sponse to any queries received on the notifications;  
assistance in establishing and maintaining risk assessment systems and control, inspection and approval 
procedures and any analysis or research that would enhance the understanding of the SPS obligations.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 109 
 
 
   4. Issues for Consideration 
 
6. The co-sponsors of this proposal are of the view that this explicit recognition 
of regional bodies would lead to greater lega l certainty.  In addition, it would lead to 
an improvement in levels of transparency  and predictability thereby enhancing the 
ability of SVEs to fulfil their legal and no tification obligations to the WTO under the 
SPS Agreement. 
7. It should be further noted that the proposal does not seek to change the legal 
architecture of the SPS Agreement nor would it impact on the balance of rights and obligations of any WTO Member.  In a ddition, the individual Members benefiting 
from this proposal will continue to be lega lly responsible and accountable for their 
individual obligations which include notifications. 
10. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement:  Designation of a Regional 
Body – WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.2 (18 July 2006) 
Proponents:  Antigua and Barbud a, Barbados, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, 
Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines  
 3. Proposals 
 
4. Recognising the underlying public policy objectives of national systems for the protection of intellectual property, including developmental and technological 
objectives, and also the need to enable th ese small, vulnerable economies to create a 
sound and viable technological base, the General Council is to recommend that there shall be explicit recognition of Members' rights to designate a regional body to 
provide such technical support
88 as is necessary to assist them in implementing the 
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. 
5. Members and the WTO, within its co mpetence, when providing technical and 
financial assistance to support small, vuln erable economies in fulfilling their rights 
and obligations under this Agreement, shall consider the advantages of providing that 
assistance to the regional body, where such exists. 
 4. Issues for Consideration 
 
6. The co-sponsors of this proposal are of the view that this explicit recognition 
of regional bodies would lead to greater lega l certainty.  In addition, it would lead to 
an improvement in levels of transparency  and predictability thereby enhancing the 
ability of SVEs to fulfil their legal a nd notification obligations under the TRIPS 
Agreement. 
7. It should be further noted that the proposal does not seek to change the legal 
architecture of the TRIPS Agreement nor woul d it impact on the balance of rights and 
obligations of any WTO Member.  In a ddition, the individual Members benefiting 
from this proposal will continue to be lega lly responsible and accountable for their 
individual obligations which include notifications. 
                                                      
88 Such technical support could include the development of TRIP S measures;  assistance in the 
preparation of TRIPS notifications;  assistance with the response to any queries received on the notifications;  
and any analysis or research that would enha nce the understanding of  the TRIPS obligations. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 110  
 
  11. Draft Report to the General Council on Measu res to Assist Small Economies in Meeting 
their Obligations under the Agreemen ts on SPS Measures, TBT and TRIPS 
(27 September 2006) 
1. In paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration,
89 Ministers established a work 
programme under the auspices of the General C ouncil to examine issues relating to the trade 
of small economies with the objective of framing responses to the trade-related issues 
identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading 
system, without creating a sub-category of WTO Members.   
2. On 1 March 2002, the General Council took note of a framework and procedures for 
the conduct of the Work Programme on Small Economies90 and instructed the Committee on 
Trade and Development (CTD) to conduct this programme of work in Dedicated Sessions and 
to report regularly on the progress of its work to the General Council.  This mandate was 
reaffirmed by the 1 August 2004 Decision of the General Council.91  At the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Conference, Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to this Work Programme and 
urged Members to adopt specific measures that w ould facilitate the fuller integration of small 
economies into the multilateral trading system.92 
3. In discussions in the CTD in Dedicated Session, the proponents of small economies 
identified, as one of the trade-related issues a ffecting the fuller integration of their economies 
into the multilateral trading system, their lim ited administrative capacities to implement 
complex rules and procedures and, in partic ular, to fulfil their obligations under the 
Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade (T BT), on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(SPS) and on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).  
4. In documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/15, WT/COMTD/SE/W/16 and 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/18, the proponents suggested that they be allowed to designate regional bodies to assist them in the implementation of their obligations in the SPS, TBT and TRIPS 
Agreements and sought explicit approval from Members to do so.  The proposals underwent 
two revisions
93 to take into account the concerns rais ed by other Members in the Dedicated 
Session and at informal and/or formal meetings of the SPS and TBT Committees and the TRIPS Council. 
5. Reports from the Chairpersons of these bodi es were sent to the Chairperson of the 
CTD in Dedicated Session.  The proponents of small economies also clarified that it was not their intention to modify, amend or alter the ba lance of rights and obligations contained in the 
SPS, TBT or TRIPS Agreements and that they, as Members, remain ultimately responsible for 
adhering to the obligations they contain.  
6. On the basis of the discussions that have  been held on this matter, the CTD in 
Dedicated Session considers that the use by sm all, vulnerable economies of regional bodies to 
provide technical support and assistance as necessary could help them implement their 
obligations in the areas of SPS, TBT and TRIPS,  and thereby facilitate their fuller integration 
into the multilateral trading system.  Accord ingly, and in pursuance of the provisions of 
paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Ministerial D eclaration, the CTD in Dedicated Session 
                                                     
 
89 WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1. 
90 WT/L/447. 
91 WT/L/579. 
92 WT/MIN(05)/DEC, paragraph 41. 
93 The latest versions have been ci rculated as WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.2; 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.2 and WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.2.  WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
 Page 111 
 
 
  recommends that the General Council agrees that  small economies are allowed to use such 
regional bodies to assist them in the implemen tation of their obligations under the SPS, TBT 
and TRIPS Agreements.  It also recommends that Members and the WTO, within its competence, when providing technical and financial assistance to support small, vulnerable economies in fulfilling their rights and obligati ons under the agreements concerned, shall 
consider the advantages of providing that assistan ce to the regional body where such exists.  It 
is understood that individual Members benef iting from these recommendations will continue 
to be legally responsible and accountable for their individual notifications and other 
obligations under these Agreements.  This r ecommendation is without prejudice both to the 
identification of other specific measures in due  course to facilitate the fuller integration of 
small economies into the multilateral trading syst em and to measures taken by other Members 
with regard to this issue. 
12. Draft Report to the General Council on Measu res to Assist Small Economies in Meeting 
their Obligations under the Agreemen ts on SPS Measures, TBT and TRIPS 
(28 September 2006) 
1. In paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration,
94 Ministers established a work 
programme under the auspices of the General C ouncil to examine issues relating to the trade 
of small economies with the objective of framing responses to the trade-related issues identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading 
system, without creating a sub-category of WTO Members.
  
2. On 1 March 2002, the General Council took note of a framework and procedures for 
the conduct of the Work Programme on Small Economies95 and instructed the Committee on 
Trade and Development (CTD) to conduct this programme of work in Dedicated Sessions and 
to report regularly on the progress of its work to the General Council.  This mandate was 
reaffirmed by the 1 August 2004 Decision of the General Council.96  At the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Conference, Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to this Work Programme and 
urged Members to adopt specific measures that w ould facilitate the fuller integration of small 
economies into the multilateral trading system.97 
3. In discussions in the CTD in Dedicated Session, the proponents of small economies 
identified, as one of the trade-related issues a ffecting the fuller integration of their economies 
into the multilateral trading system, their lim ited administrative capacities to implement 
complex rules and procedures and, in partic ular, to fulfil their obligations under the 
Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade (T BT), on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(SPS) and on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).  
4. In documents WT/COMTD/SE/W/15, WT/COMTD/SE/W/16 and 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/18, the proponents suggested that they be allowed to designate regional bodies to assist them in the implementation of their obligations in the SPS, TBT and TRIPS 
Agreements and sought explicit approval from Members to do so.  The proposals underwent 
two revisions
98 to take into account the concerns rais ed by other Members in the Dedicated 
Session and at informal and/or formal meetings of the SPS and TBT Committees and the TRIPS Council. 
                                                     
 
94 WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1. 
95 WT/L/447. 
96 WT/L/579. 
97 WT/MIN(05)/DEC, paragraph 41. 
98 The latest versions have been ci rculated as WT/COMTD/SE/W/15/Rev.2; 
WT/COMTD/SE/W/16/Rev.2 and WT/COMTD/SE/W/18/Rev.2. WT/COMTD/SE/W/22/Rev.4 
Page 112  
 
  5. Reports from the Chairpersons of these bodi es were sent to the Chairperson of the 
CTD in Dedicated Session.  The proponents of small economies also clarified that it was not their intention to modify, amend or alter the ba lance of rights and obligations contained in the 
SPS, TBT or TRIPS Agreements and that they, as Members, remain ultimately responsible for 
adhering to the obligations they contain.  
6. On the basis of the discussions that have  been held on this matter, the CTD in 
Dedicated Session considers that the use by sm all, vulnerable economies of regional bodies to 
provide technical support and assistance as necessary could help them implement their obligations in the areas of SPS, TBT and TRIPS,  and thereby facilitate their fuller integration 
into the multilateral trading system.  Accord ingly, and in pursuance of the provisions of 
paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Ministerial D eclaration, the CTD in Dedicated Session 
recommends that the General Council agrees that  small economies are allowed to use such 
regional bodies to assist them in the implemen tation of their obligations under the SPS, TBT 
and TRIPS Agreements.  It also recommends that Members and the WTO, within its competence, when providing technical and financial assistance to support small, vulnerable 
economies in fulfilling their rights and obligati ons under the agreements concerned, shall 
consider the advantages of providing that assistan ce to the regional body where such exists.  It 
is understood that individual Members benef iting from these recommendations will continue 
to be legally responsible and accountable for their individual notifications and other 
obligations under these Agreements.  This r ecommendation is without prejudice both to the 
identification of other specific measures in due  course to facilitate the fuller integration of 
small economies into the multilateral trading sy stem and to the use of regional bodies as 
described in this report by ot her developing country Members. 
__________