WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/COMTD/M/82 
19 October 2011 
 
 (11-5190) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Eighty-Second Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 21 JUNE AND 5 JULY 20111 
 
Chairman:  H. E. Dr. Anthony Mothae Maruping (Lesotho) 
 
 
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ......................................................................................................... 2  
B.  OBSERVERS  .............................................................................................................................. .... 5 
(i)  Request for attendance of ad hoc observers ............................................................................... 5  
(ii)  Further consideration of requests for observer status by the League of Arab States, 
the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting, the Organisation Internationale de la 
Francophonie, the Common Fund for Commodities, the Organization of Arab 
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) and th e Groupe de la Banque Africaine de 
Developpement ................................................................................................................. ........... 5 
C. 
REPORT OF THE 44TH SESSION OF THE JOINT ADVISORY GROUP ON THE 
INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTRE UNCTAD /WTO (ITC/AG(XLIV)/ 238) ........................................ 7  
D.  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  ......................................................................... 8  
-  GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL (GCC) NOTIFICATION OF CUSTOMS UNION – 
COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA , EGYPT AND INDIA (WT/COMTD /W/175) .................................... 9  
-  NOTIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN GOODS BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION 
OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN ) AND KOREA  ................................................................ 9  
-  NOTIFICATION OF THE COMPREHENSIV E ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 
BETWEEN INDIA AND KOREA (GOODS ) ........................................................................................ 9  
-  GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES - NOTIFICATION BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
(WT/COMTD /N/4/ADD.5) ............................................................................................................ 17  
-  GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES - NOTIFICATION BY JAPAN 
(WT/COMTD /N/2/ADD.15) .......................................................................................................... 17  
E.  SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE DUAL NOTIFICATION OF THE 
GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL CUSTOMS UNION - COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA , 
EGYPT AND INDIA (WT/COMTD /W/175) ..................................................................................... 18  
F.  MODALITIES TO IMPLEMENT THE TRANSPA RENCY MECHANISM FOR PREFERENTIAL 
TRADE ARRANGEMENTS - STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN  ...................................................... 21  
G.  REVIEW OF STEPS T AKEN TO PROVIDE DUTY -FREE AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET ACCESS 
TO LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  ............................................................................................ 23  
H.  TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND TRAINING  ................................................................................ 25  
                                                      
1 The 82nd Session was reconvened on 5 July 2011 to discuss agenda item F only. As there was not 
enough time on 21 June to consider all items on the agenda, the Committee agreed with the Chairman's proposal 
to reconvene the 82nd Session to consider item F, while considering all other items on 21 June.   WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 2 
 
 
  (i)  Annual Report on Technical Assistance and Training, 1 January to 31 December 
2010 (WT/COMTD/W/178) ....................................................................................................... 2 5 
(ii)  Technical Cooperation Audit Report for 2010 (WT/COMTD/W/177 and Corr.1) ................... 25  
I.  OTHER BUSINESS  ....................................................................................................................... 30  
ANNEX ......................................................................................................................... ........................ 31  
 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairman said that the agenda for the 82nd Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (CTD) was contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/3764 circulated on 10 June 2011.  
2. He said that, as was the case for the 81st Session of the CTD, the agenda for the present 
meeting reflected two written requests that the Secr etariat had received for the same communication 
from China, Egypt and India on "Systemic and specific issues arising out of the dual notification of the Gulf Cooperation Council Customs Union" to a ppear on the agenda.  The first request, which was 
reflected under agenda item D, came from China, Egypt and India.  These Members had asked that 
the sub-agenda items pertaining to the Gulf C ooperation Council (GCC) Customs Union notification 
and the other two dual notifications  – which concerned the regional tr ade agreements (RTAs) between 
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)  and Korea, and between India and Korea – be 
retained on the CTD's agenda.  The second request  came from the European Union (EU) and the 
United States (US).  These Members had request ed a discussion of the same paper – the one 
submitted by China, Egypt and India on "Systemi c and specific issues arising out of the dual 
notification of the Gulf Cooperation Council Custom s Union" – but under a separate agenda item.  
Accordingly, this was reflected on the agenda as item E.  He understood that his predecessor had held 
consultations with the two gr oups of Members before the 81
st Session of the CTD, in an endeavour to 
have a single agenda item on the issue.  This had not proved possible at the time, but he wished to 
inform Members that he intended to continue ho lding Chair-led informal consultations after the 
present meeting, so that the matter could be resolved as soon as possible.  
3. He also recalled the fax that he had sent to  Members on 15 June 2011, in which he had 
indicated that he intended to hold an informal  discussion under agenda item F on the modalities to 
implement the Transparency Mechanism (TM) for Preferential Trade Arrangements (PTAs).  The 
objective was to allow the Committee to consider the informal document on this subject as well as the 
possible standard format for the notification of PTA s.  These had been sent to Members, and copies 
were also available at the back of the meeting room.  
4. The representative of Egypt said that, before the adoption of the agenda of the 81st Session 
of the CTD, his delegation had sought clarifi cation on a number of procedural aspects and had 
questioned the reasons that had instigated the US  to introduce a second item on the CTD's agenda to 
address the GCC Customs Union notification.  This was in addition to the sub-item that the US had 
introduced regarding the same notification, and wh ich had continued to appear on the CTD's agenda 
since the 73rd Session under the heading "Notifications under the Enabling Clause".  His delegation 
continued to caution against establishing procedur al precedence, and against the attempts to 
overstretch the interpretation of rule 4 of the CTD's rules of procedure.  Egypt did not believe that the 
issue of contention would be resolved by havi ng redundant or repetitive items on the agenda, and 
maintained the view that it was highly irregular to see one Member requesting the inclusion of two 
separate and distinct items on the agenda to address the same issue.  More awkward was the fact that 
the newly-introduced item E on the agenda related to the communication submitted by China, Egypt 
and India that was already under c onsideration within the ambit of the heading "Notifications under  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 3 
 
 
  the Enabling Clause".  Egypt was concerned that su ch an anomaly had been further entertained and 
had been brought forward onto the agenda of the present meeting.  
5. His delegation was willing to show flexibility an d adopt the agenda for the present meeting, 
but on the basis of a number of understandings.  He not ed firstly in this regard that the deliberations 
taking place under the sub-item pertaining to the G CC Customs Union notification under the heading 
"Notifications under the Enabling Clause" were not  taking place merely for transparency purposes. 
Rather, they constituted an integral part of the substantive process for the consideration of the RTA 
since the time that the sub-item had been placed on the agenda of the CTD at its 73rd Session in order 
to question the legality of notifying the Agreement exclusively on the basis of the Enabling Clause.  
6. Second, he observed that, during the previous CTD meeting, the former Chairman of the 
CTD had indicated that no consensus was reached with respect to the consideration of the GCC 
Customs Union, and that the issue of considerati on had not been resolved.  The deliberations under 
item D had, therefore, not been exhausted.  In th is regard, he recalled th e numerous questions and 
arguments that his delegation had raised during the previous meeting in connection to RTAs with a 
dual notification status, and specifically with respect  to the GCC Customs Union.  Finally, he noted 
that the joint communication submitted by China, India and Egypt on the "Systemic and specific 
issues arising out of the dual notification of the GCC Customs Union" had been formally introduced 
at the 80th Session in connection with the consideration pr ocess of that Agreement, and at the request 
of the US and the EU during consultations held in September 2010.  In other words, the consideration 
of this communication remained intrinsically relate d to the consideration of the GCC dual notification 
and was not a stand-alone item on the agenda. 
7. The representative of India supported the interv ention by Egypt.  He was pleased to note 
that the Chairman had rightly maintained the sub-agenda item regarding the GCC Customs Union 
notification.  He wished to clarify, however, that China, Egypt and India had not requested the insertion of an agenda item, but rather had asserted th at the GCC sub-item needed to be retained.  This 
was in keeping with past practice that an agenda item was retained till the time that discussions were 
exhausted and Members decided by consensus to dr op the agenda item.  He sincerely hoped that 
during discussions under this sub-item at the present meeting, there would be substantive engagement 
from some delegations which had so far avoide d discussions on issues of serious concern to 
developing countries.  His delegation was also quite  surprised that, as was the case at the last CTD 
meeting, there was duplication on the agenda for the present meeting by the inclusion of item E.  India 
failed to understand why a duplicate agenda item was required when an item concerning the GCC 
Customs Union already appeared on the agenda a nd had been appearing on the CTD's agenda since 
the 73
rd Session. 
8. The representative of China recalle d that, at the beginning of the 81st Session of the CTD, 
his delegation, along with Egypt and India, had rai sed serious concerns on the irregularity of having 
two separate agenda items dealing with the same issue and the same document.  Although it was understood that the agenda was proposed by the Chai rman to strike a delicate balance, the three 
delegations wished to emphasize once again that , since the discussion on the GCC Customs Union 
and the other two "dually-notified" RTAs had not  been exhausted - and since Members had not 
reached consensus on how to proceed with them - th e original sub-items listed under item D were the 
most appropriate venues to conduct further discussion at  the present meeting and future meetings.  He 
added that the CTD should avoid creating a preceden t of having redundant agenda items for the same 
issue, even upon the request of the same Member.  He expressed his support for the requests made 
by Egypt seeking the Chairman's confirmation on the relevant points.  His delegation looked forward 
to engaging in discussions during the informal cons ultations that the Chairman would be holding.  
9. The representative of the United States thanke d the Chairman for having clarified which 
delegations had requested which agenda items.  He be lieved that this was helpful for Members.  With WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 4 
 
 
  respect to the agenda for the present meeting, his de legation continued to have  concerns with agenda 
item D, specifically the sub-items addressing the notifications of the GCC Customs Union, the 
ASEAN-Korea Agreement and the India-Korea Agre ement.  Each of these sub-items had fulfilled 
their purpose of informing Members of the notific ations made, and should be removed from the 
agenda.  However, in an effort to facilitate the formal CTD meeting, his de legation had demonstrated 
flexibility in consultations with the Chairman, despit e the substantive concerns.  Given that the three 
sub-items listed under agenda item D were unneces sary, he said that he would only be providing 
comments under agenda item E, which correctly lis ted the title of the paper submitted by China, 
Egypt and India.  If some Members called for th e continued listing of the specific sub-items under 
agenda item D for the next CTD meeting, his delegation wished to register at this point its objection to 
that course of action.  A better course of action would be for the Chairman to continue informal 
consultations before setting the age nda for the next CTD meeting.   
10. He expressed regret that this issue had taken so much of the Committee’s time over the last 
two years, and that past CTD meetings had been de layed.  The CTD's annual report for 2010 had also 
been affected, as some Members could not agr ee to a factual representation of the Committee's 
discussions on RTA notifications.  The US had worked d iligently in an effort to resolve this issue, and 
was willing to continue to do so under the Chairman 's leadership in informal consultations.  In 
closing, he said that he wished to be very cl ear upfront that the US had no concern with any 
developing country notifying a qualifying agreement under the Enabling Clause.    
11. The representative of Australia said that her delegation shared the view that discussions on 
the first three sub-items under agenda item D ha d been exhausted.  Australia did not support 
maintaining these sub-items on the agenda, as systemic  issues relating to dual notifications were more 
appropriately addressed in the Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR).  However, if it was necessary for 
such issues to be addressed in the CTD, Australia believed that they were better addressed under 
agenda item E.  This was in order to avoid the creation of de facto  standing items on notifications 
which had already fulfilled their original purpose.  She expressed disappointment that Members were 
still unable to bridge differences with respect to pro cedural issues and continued to utilize the valuable 
time of the Committee.  Australia looked forward to participating in the Chairman's consultations, and 
hoped that it would be possible the resolve the matter informally before the circulation of the agenda for the next CTD meeting. 
12. The representative of Japan said that his delega tion was also of the view that discussions on 
the first three sub-items under item D had been exhaus ted.  In this light, he did not see the need to 
repeat the three sub-items on the agenda for the pres ent meeting.  He noted that some delegations had 
mentioned that the first three sub-items under item D dealt substantively with the same issues as those 
to be addressed under item E.  Howeve r, Japan believed that the issues were  different.  In particular, it 
was only under item E that systemic issues should be  discussed.  He also expressed regret that the 
matter had still not been resolved.  Japan looked forw ard to participating in the informal consultations 
that the Chairman would be holding , and to finding a solution soon. 
13. The Chairman reiterated his intention to hold informal consultations in order to try and 
resolve the matter.  He asked whether the ag enda for the present meeting could be adopted. 
14. The representative of India said that his dele gation could show flexibility in terms of 
adopting the agenda, but nevertheless wished to make  a few points at this stage.  He noted that a 
number of delegations had mentioned that discu ssions on the GCC Customs Union notification had 
been exhausted.  In previous meetings, it had been  suggested that the item "Notifications under the 
Enabling Clause" appeared on the CTD's agenda for transparency purposes only.  His delegation did 
not understand this, since a look at past CTD mee tings showed that substantive discussions had taken 
place under this agenda item.  He gave the example of the EU's GSP scheme, which had appeared on 
the CTD's agenda for a number of years.  In that context, a large range of issues had been discussed  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 5 
 
 
  under the "Notifications under the Enabling Clause"  item.  The discussion had certainly gone well 
beyond matters relating to transparency.  
15. He went on to say that, when the sub-item concerning the GCC Customs Union notification 
was first introduced by the US under the "Notifi cations under the Enabling Clause" agenda item, 
serious concerns were raised on a number of issues including breach of tariff bindings and accession commitments.  These were not transparency issues, but were substantive and legal in nature.  He 
added that his delegation was not aware of any rules of  procedure or terms of reference that stated that 
the "Notifications under the Enabling Clause" age nda item existed only for transparency purposes.  
Furthermore, India believed that the sub-item concerning the GCC Customs Union notification was 
the appropriate heading under which Members s hould continue their discussions.  Substantive 
discussions under this sub-item  had, in fact, already been held.  
16. He said that the issue at hand was an issue rela ted to a notification.  In this regard, he 
recalled that the US had stated that it did not ha ve any problems with developing countries notifying a 
qualifying RTA under the Enabling Clause.  This was a confusing statement to his delegation. While 
the US position appeared to be that customs unions  did not qualify for notification under the Enabling 
Clause, he indicated that it remained unclear wh at was meant by a "qualifying RTA".  These points 
demonstrated the necessity of discussing all issues pertaining to the GCC Customs Union notification only under the "Notifications under the Enabling Clause" heading. 
17. The Chairman said that the points raised in th e various interventions demonstrated the need 
for informal consultations to be held.  He proposed  that the Committee take note of all interventions. 
18. It was so agreed. 
19. The agenda was adopted. 
B. OBSERVERS  
(i) Request for attendance of ad hoc observers 
20. The Chairman recalled that, at previous sessions of the CTD, Members had agreed to invite 
a number of intergovernmental organizations on an ad hoc, meeting-by-meeting basis.  These 
included the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), the Economic Community of West African States 
(ECOWAS), the Economic Cooperati on Organization (ECO), the Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee 
Corporation, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the 
Islamic Conference (OIC), the South Centre, th e Pacific Islands Forum, the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP), the West Afri can Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) and 
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).  He said that, following the decision taken at 
the previous meeting of the Committee, the organizati ons had been invited to the present meeting.  He 
proposed that these organizations  be invited to the next formal meeting of the CTD. 
21. It was so agreed. 
(ii) Further consideration of requests for observer st atus by the League of Arab States, the 
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting, the Organisation Int ernationale de la Francophonie, the Common 
Fund for Commodities, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) 
and the Groupe de la Banque Africaine de Developpement 
22. The Chairman said that the positions of delega tions were on the record.  He asked whether 
there was any change in positions to extend observer status to any of those applicants. WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 6 
 
 
  23. The representative of Egypt said that the Lea gue of Arab States (LAS) had submitted since 
1999 numerous requests to become a permanent observer in several WTO bodies, including the CTD.  
Similar requests had been submitted by the LAS to participate in a number of WTO Ministerial 
Conferences including in Seattle in 1999, Doha in  2001, Cancún in 2003 and Hong Kong in 2005.  
Regrettably, however, due to the reservations of two Members - and in a clear case of abuse to the rule of consensus - all efforts exerted to secure obs erver status for the LAS had come to no avail.  
More worrisome was the fact that the reserva tions were politically motivated and had somehow 
lingered over the years and been accepted ipso facto in what should have been a non-political 
multilateral trading environment.  
24. The consideration of requests made by in ter-governmental organizations (IGOs) for 
permanent observer status had become - as a result of that situation, and for more than a decade now - 
a politicized issue that was in direct contradiction to the guidelines for granting IGOs observer status, 
as stipulated in Annex 3 of the rules of procedure of the CTD which followed mutatis mutandis  the 
rules established by the General Council.  Hi s delegation noted with a sense of irony and 
disappointment that, while the LAS had maintain ed observer status under GATT 1947, the League 
continued to be barred from being granted similar stat us in the WTO.  Evidently, such a position again 
ran inconsistent with the proce dures established by the WTO, wher ein favourable consideration was 
to be given to requests for observership submitted by IGOs that had in the p ast been associated with 
the work of the GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES.  He  noted that the LAS played a mandatory role 
in coordinating Arab positions on trade and trade- related matters and was important in harmonizing 
economic and trade policies among its members.  Th e League, therefore, satisfied the condition of 
having the competence and oversight over trade polic y formulation, as prescribed by the relevant 
WTO rules of procedure.  
25. He went on to say that IGOs had been knocking  on the WTO's door for more than a decade.  
If Members continued to ignore the relevance of IGOs and the added value that might result from 
coordinating their work with the CTD, this would only inflict harm on the role of this important 
Committee, which was to serve as the focal point fo r the integrated treatment of all development 
issues within the multilateral trading system.  Acco rding to the rules of procedure, requests for 
observer status should be considered by each WTO bod y.  The rules also stipulated that an IGO's 
request for observer status in a particular WTO bod y did not automatically imply that such status 
would be accorded in other WTO bodies.  The ru les provided ample manoeuvre and prerogatives for 
each body to decide how to process requests for observership.  Egypt, therefore, believed that it was high time that the CTD reverted to the extensive lis t of organizations seeking observer status in the 
Committee.  The CTD needed to take action to r esolve the issue and pave the way for IGOs to 
contribute to, and complement, its activities.  He noted that this was becoming even more crucial 
given the apparent erosion of the development dime nsion of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA).  
Furthermore, it was necessary to put an end to th e controversial suggestions that had been made 
regarding the capacity of the CTD to deal with de velopment issues in the multilateral trading system.  
26. Egypt's concrete suggestion was that work shou ld proceed in the CTD in order to further 
clarify the guidelines for granting observer status to IGOs.  His delegation believe d that an integral set 
of transparent, objective, horizontal, technical a nd non-politicized criteria should be devised by the 
CTD according to which requests for granting observe r status - including the request of the LAS - 
would be gauged. Criteria needed to be put in place in order to avoid risking any further the 
politicization of observership requests.  Criteria were also needed to circumvent the unclear positions 
that had been maintained concer ning the LAS, which continued to jeopardize the credibility of the 
WTO as a rules-based multilateral trading system. 
27. The representative of India said that his delega tion was also concerned with the continued 
deadlock on the issue of observership in WTO bodies,  including in the CTD.  He agreed with Egypt 
that the issue had become politicized and was in di rect contradiction to the guidelines for granting  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 7 
 
 
  observer status.  The importance of relations with IGOs was recognized in Article V of the Marrakesh 
Agreement, which called for effective cooperation w ith IGOs.  It was, therefore, important that 
requests for observership be evaluated on the merit of each application and on the relevance of the 
participation of the applicant to the discussions in that respective body.  Consideration of requests for 
observer status should not be based on political cons iderations but on merit, on relevance and on the 
international standing of the applicant. 
28. The representative of China thanked Egypt for bringing up an important issue.  Since his 
delegation had just heard the intervention from Egypt, more time would be needed for analysis.  For 
the present, he wished to limit himself to some pr eliminary comments.  He said that observer status 
was an issue of systemic importance to the WTO.  It not only helped foster sound relationships 
between the WTO and other IGOs, but also played a significant role in enhancing the visibility and 
relevance of the WTO in global governance.  Cl ear and appropriate procedures would facilitate 
achieving these objectives.  He noted that Annex 3 of the rules of procedure for sessions of the 
Ministerial Conference and meetings of the Genera l Council adopted in July 1996 provided the basic 
guidelines for granting observer status.  However, the fa ilure to grant observer status to any applicants 
during the past few years had demonstrated that th e Annex, despite its merits, still needed further 
improvement. In particular, procedures and criteria to grant observer status should be established.  
According to paragraph 4 of the Annex, request s for observer status should be considered on a 
case-by-case basis in a particular WTO body.  Therefore, in China's view, the CTD had the 
prerogative to develop the procedures and criteri a to grant observer status based on the existing 
guidelines. This could constitute a valuable contribution of the CTD to the whole system. 
29. The Committee took note of all interventions. 
C. REPORT OF THE 44TH SESSION OF THE JOINT ADVISORY GROUP ON THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE 
CENTRE UNCTAD /WTO (ITC/AG(XLIV)/238 ) 
30. The Chairman said that the report of the 44th Session of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) on 
the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WT O (ITC) was contained in ITC document 
ITC/AG(XLIV)/238.  He invited Ms Patricia Francis,  the Executive Director of the ITC, to present the 
report.   
31. The Executive Director of the ITC said that the Chairman of the JAG - Ambassador 
Darlington Mwape of Zambia - was unable to pre sent the JAG report to the CTD, due to another 
commitment.  She would be, therefore, be presenting the report on behalf of the JAG Chairman.  
32. She said that the JAG had held its 44th Session on 16 and 17 December 2010.  The meeting 
was convened to discuss the ITC's 2009 Annual Report,  the Consolidated Programme Document for 
2010 and the ITC's draft Operational Plan for 2011.  Government representatives had also announced 
their trust fund contributions to the ITC for 2011.  In  their opening statements, the Director-General of 
the WTO and the Secretary General of UNCTAD had expressed their full support to the ITC.  They 
had both noted that the ITC was a key partner in th e Aid-for-Trade Initiative.  They had also cited 
several examples of strengthened cooperation between the WTO, UNCTAD and the ITC.  She said 
that, in her opening statement, she had noted that  there was a greater understanding now of the role 
that the ITC could play in trade-related technical ass istance.  She had also indicated that the ITC had 
concluded the change management process in 2009.  The organization had actively participated in the 
regional and global Aid-for-Trade reviews with a vi ew to ensuring that th e private sector voice was 
well represented and that trad e was mainstreamed as a tool for achieving the Millennium 
Development Goals (MDGs).  She had also informed  the JAG that, in 2010, the ITC had prioritized 
its work around least-developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), small-island developing states (SID S) and Sub-Saharan Africa.  Pr ogrammes were focused on gender, 
environment and poverty.   WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 8 
 
 
  33. She said that the JAG had provided the ITC with useful guidance on the organization's 
annual programme of work.  The impact of the IT C's capacity-building work was acknowledged.  The 
Group had welcomed improvements in the presentation and content of the Annual Report.  
Satisfaction was expressed with the progress made  in embedding results-based management (RBM) 
into the organization.  The ITC was encouraged to  work further on RBM.  The proposal to move the 
annual JAG meeting from December each year to the second quarter of the year was endorsed.  This 
would allow the ITC to present its annual report for the previous year in a more timely fashion.  She 
remarked in this regard that the next JAG meeting, which was to take place on 30 June and 
1 July 2011, would be held on the WTO's premis es.  She continued by saying that the JAG had 
applauded the ITC's growing emphasis on regionally  structured solutions, while stressing the 
importance of country ownership of projects.  The ITC was encouraged to ensure that multi-country 
programmes contributed to regional integration.  The Group had also taken note of the Consolidated 
Programme Document for 2010 and of the 2011 draft Oper ational Plan.  Finally, she mentioned that a 
number of government representatives had announced voluntary contributions to the ITC.  In this 
regard, she thanked Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland.  
34. The representative of Canada said that hi s delegation was pleased to be the donor 
coordinator for the ITC, and looked forward to the upcoming JAG meeting. Canada encouraged the 
ITC to continue to implement the RBM approach, which was yielding positive results.  He acknowledged that more work needed to be done, but welcomed the efforts that had been made so far 
to help to maximize the development impact of ITC programming. 
35. The representative of the European Union said that the EU looked forward to the upcoming 
JAG meeting, which would review in detail the activ ities carried out in the previous year.  The EU 
welcomed the efforts that the ITC had made to appl y RBM and reporting in its operations.  The efforts 
made by the organization to improve the efficiency  of its procurement were also appreciated. She 
encouraged the ITC to continue to  sharpen its focus on results and impacts, in line with the overall 
priority given to impact and value for money in Aid for Trade, and in development cooperation more 
generally.  This needed to be done in a holistic wa y, and not just in terms of individual projects and 
activities. 
36. The Executive Director of the ITC said that sh e wished to assure delegations that the ITC 
was committed to RBM in order to make the organiza tion more efficient and effective, and to deliver 
results to beneficiary countries.  This had been th e focus of the ITC's work over the past couple of 
years, and continued to be the direction in which the organization was moving. 
37. The Committee took note of the report of the 44th Session of the JAG and forwarded it to the 
General Council for adoption. 
D. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ENABLING CLAUSE  
38. The Chairman said that he wished to provi de Members with a brief update on the RTAs 
notified under the Enabling Clause that were to be considered in the CTD's Dedicated Sessions on 
RTAs.  He firstly informed the Committee that no RTAs had been notified under the Enabling Clause 
since his predecessor's update to the Committee at the 81st Session.  Furthermore, for a number of 
notified RTAs – namely, RTAs between India and MERCOSUR, India and Nepal, India and 
Afghanistan, and India and Bhutan – the full set of da ta needed to complete the factual presentations 
had not been submitted by the parties.  Of these agreements, only data relating to India-MERCOSUR 
had been provided to date.  In particular, the Se cretariat had received all the necessary data from 
MERCOSUR, but was still waiting to receive some data  from India.  He urged the parties to these 
agreements to provide the data as soon as possible.  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 9 
 
 
  39. He also recalled that it had b een mentioned in past meetings  that there were a number of 
RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause that had not b een ratified by all the parties.  Following the 
procedures of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreem ents (CRTA), an RTA falling in that category 
would only be considered by the CTD after it had b een ratified by all the parties.  There were three 
RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause that fell w ithin this category, namely the Pacific Island 
Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), the South- Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) and the 
ASEAN-India Agreement.  The parties to those agre ements were urged to inform the Secretariat as 
soon as all ratifications were complete. 
40. Having completed his update, he invited the Committee to move to the sub-items listed 
under agenda item D.  He said that he wished the Co mmittee to treat the first three sub-items together, 
as had been done at the last meeting.  The Committee would then move on to the other sub-items. 
- GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL (GCC) NOTIFICATION OF CUSTOMS UNION – 
COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA , EGYPT AND INDIA (WT/COMTD /W/175) 
- NOTIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON TRADE  IN GOODS BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION 
OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN ) AND KOREA  
- NOTIFICATION OF THE COMPREHENSIV E ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 
BETWEEN INDIA AND KOREA (GOODS ) 
41. The Chairman said that he would first ask China,  Egypt and India if they wished to take the 
floor, since it was these delegations that had request ed that the three sub-items under consideration be 
retained on the CTD's agenda for the present meeti ng.  He pointed out that a lengthy discussion had 
taken place at the last CTD meeting on this issue,  and that the positions of  delegations were on the 
record.  He, therefore, encouraged Member s to keep their interventions brief.  
42. The representative of Egypt said that for the past few years, his delegation - along with 
China and India - had given a detailed account of the specific and systemic issues that needed to be 
resolved in connection with the CTD's considera tion of the GCC Customs Union notification.  The 
three delegations had raised several legal and procedur al issues with regard to the exclusive nature of 
RTAs with a dual notification status.  A communi cation had been submitted in the CTD to evoke 
discussions on the matter and to address the legal and procedural implications arising from dual 
notifications.  The three delegations had worked c onstructively in the CTD, the Council for Trade in 
Goods, the NGR, the CRTA and the General Council to try to resolve the issues of contention.  It had 
been demonstrated that, if the specific and systemic issues that had been raised in connection with the 
consideration of RTAs with a dual notification stat us were not handled with caution, Members risked 
impinging on the mandate and terms of referen ce of the CTD. Furthermore, they would be 
undermining the scope of application of the Enabling Clause, as well as the rights and obligations of 
Members and the proper application of the TM for RTAs. 
43. He said that China, Egypt and India had al so illustrated during the last CTD meeting, 
through more than a dozen questions and arguments - which were both specific and systemic in nature 
- the issues that needed to be r esolved in the CTD.  These issues n eeded to be resolved in order to 
safeguard that a decision taken with respect to RT As with a dual notifica tion status was coherent, 
non-biased and transparent.  Such a decision also n eeded to be compatible with the disciplines and 
procedures that had been maintained, which warrante d an appropriate consider ation of RTAs with a 
dual notification - including the GCC Customs Union.  He believed that the outcome of this process 
was that a number of points had been established.  
44. He said firstly in this regard that the matter of RTAs with a dual notification status was not 
to be overlooked.  This was not an issue that w ould casually fade away, nor was it something to be WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 10 
 
 
  dealt with on an ad hoc basis.  Rather, RTAs with  a dual notification represented systemic challenges, 
and the time was ripe to set up a proper harmonized me thodology to deal with the matter.  Second, he 
emphasized that all notifications made under the En abling Clause, including the GCC Customs Union, 
were valid.  This had been confirmed by the form er CTD Chairman.  There was no such thing as an 
incorrect Enabling Clause notification, unless that te rm was used to describ e a formal corrigendum 
that was circulated by the notifying Members, stati ng their intention to revok e an earlier notification 
made on the basis of the Enabling Clause.  Third, he noted that the CTD had, in fact, considered in the 
past several customs unions between developing coun tries on the basis of the Enabling Clause.  There 
should be no selectivity between agreements as far as the process of their consideration was 
concerned.  Fourth, he indicated that the GCC Cu stoms Union had been notified in 1984 on the basis 
of the Enabling Clause.  This had been accepted as su ch by the entire membership, within the ambit of 
preferential agreements among developing countries notified under the Enabling Clause. 
45. As his fifth point, he noted that the proce dures established under the TM for RTAs did not 
allow the Mechanism to automatically process RTAs with a dual notification status.  Therefore, the 
procedures established by the Mechanism needed to be improved.  His sixth point was that Members 
had adopted over time a relaxed inte rpretation of the provisions of th e TM for RTAs.  In particular, 
according to the RTAs TM, Members were obliged to proceed - upon receipt of a notification and 
irrespective of the legal basis invoked to notify an RTA - in applying the transparency procedures.  
Seventh, he said that the NGR was only dealing with  one procedural aspect raised in connection with 
dual notifications, and did not address the full scope of specific and systemic issues that had been 
raised with respect to RTAs with dual notifications .  In fact, it seemed that negotiations in the NGR 
had stalled altogether, and were deadlocked over how to process RTAs with a dual notification status.  
His eighth point was that, since 2002, a rising tide and a growing tendency had been observed among some Members to keep challenging the legality and rights of developing count ry Members to invoke 
the Enabling Clause when notifyi ng their RTAs to the WTO. 
46. Moving on to his ninth point, he said that the Enabling Clause did not prohibit the 
establishment of RTAs between developing countri es that involved the reduction or elimination of 
non-tariff barriers (NTBs).  On the contrary, th e Enabling Clause sanctioned such measures, which 
were warranted until the time Me mbers agreed on the criteria and conditions for the reduction or 
elimination of NTBs within a customs union.  Such a practice should continue to be viable, and was in 
conformity with the provisions of the Enabling Clause.   Tenth, he indicated that it would be erroneous 
to maintain a practice whereby Members were to continue challenging at first sight, or on a prima facie  basis, the legal basis upon which RTAs had b een notified.  Any questions or issues of 
contention that Members might wish to raise rega rding an RTA that had been notified under the 
Enabling Clause should be done on the premise of a factual report prepared by the Secretariat.  
Discussions should take place in a Dedicated Sessi on of the CTD, so as to allow Members to 
substantiate - or argue against - such challenges.  More important was the fact that Members should 
differentiate between the RTA transparency exerci se and the question of how to address the adverse 
trade effects that might arise from the establishment of RTAs. 
47. His eleventh point was that the body that ha d the ultimate prerogative to interpret WTO 
provisions - including the scope of application of the Enabling Clause - was the General Council.  The 
provisions were not subject to Members' interpretati ons or preferences within the CTD, or within any 
other WTO body.  Twelfth, he noted that the speci fic and systemic issues raised in connection with 
the consideration of the GCC Customs Union notifi cation were more profound and diverse in nature 
than was the case for other dual notifications.  In this  light, the CTD had a central - if not the ultimate 
- role in resolving these issues.  This was in view  of the Committee's broad terms of reference and 
mandate in considering any questions arising from th e application or use of special provisions in 
favour of developing countries, including the Enabling Clause.   WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 11 
 
 
  48. He went on to say that Members had not provi ded any counter-arguments in response to the 
substantive questions and arguments that had b een raised by China, Egypt and India at the 
81st Session.  The points raised by the three delega tions were concerned with  the consideration of 
RTAs with a dual notification, as well as the specifi c and systemic issues raised in connection with 
these RTAs - particularly as they related to the GCC Customs Union.  In this light, he said that the 
consideration of RTAs with a dual notification s hould proceed according to the proposal presented by 
India in the NGR.  In particular, RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause, as well as RTAs with a 
dual notification, should be considered in the CT D.  This would preserve the role of the CTD and 
uphold its mandate, and would only require the introduc tion of minor changes to the application of the 
RTAs TM.  Proceeding along the lines of India's pro posal would also preserve the application of the 
Enabling Clause and its standing in WTO law as lex specialis .  Furthermore, this would validate the 
legal opinion that had been upheld by the Secretaria t in 2003 when it had confirmed that any review 
of an RTA - wherever it occurred - had to be perfo rmed according to the legal provision that had been 
invoked to justify the WTO consistency of the RTA in question.  The Secretariat had additionally 
indicated that any review of an RTA notified unde r the Enabling Clause needed be carried out in 
accordance with the terms of refe rence of the CTD, and that the CTD had the overall responsibility 
for the operation of the Enabling Clause. 
49. The proposed way forward was coherent and a ddressed the concerns and positions that had 
been expressed by the African Group in documen t TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2.  In that document, the 
African Group held the view that, with regard to the reduction or elimination of tariffs under the 
Enabling Clause, no WTO body or Member could prescribe any criteria relating to the arrangements in question.  The African Group had further indicated  that Members should respect such arrangements 
as an exercise of rights that developing and l east-developed country Memb ers had under the WTO.  
The proposed way forward also matched the view expressed by the LDC Group in document 
TN/CTD/W/4.  In particular, the LDC Group deemed that the scope and effectiveness of the Enabling 
Clause had been eroded through the Uruguay Round  process.  The LDC Group had, therefore, 
indicated that a reversal of this erosion was essential, and was a key aspect of the strengthening of special and differential treatment measures.  Fina lly, the proposed way forward supported the views 
expressed by the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group in document TN/RL/W/155.  The ACP Group had reaffirmed the legal validity of the Enab ling Clause to cover regional trade arrangements 
entered into among developing countries, to the effect  that developing countries' rights to form such 
arrangements under the Enabling Clause were not undermined by paragraphs 5 to 9 of GATT 
Article XXIV.  
50. He concluded by expressing his hope that, on the basis of the points that had been made, the 
CTD could proceed to resolve the i ssues that China, Egypt and India had been raising for a number of 
years.  He also hoped that Members could cons tructively engage in discussing the specific and 
systemic issues in question under the present agenda item, and that they could support the suggested 
way forward.  
51. The representative of India noted that the Ch airman had indicated at the beginning of the 
meeting that China, Egypt and India had requested  to retain the three sub-items presently under 
consideration.  He wished to clarify in this regard  that China, Egypt and India had only stated in their 
message of 6 June 2011 that the procedural practice that had been applicable in the CTD should be 
maintained with respect to the GCC Customs Union notification.  The three delegations had expressed 
their expectation that the sub-items would continue to appear on the CTD's agenda in their current 
form, under the heading "Notifications under the En abling Clause".  This was to allow Members to 
revert to the sub-items until the time that discussions  were fully exhausted, that a decision had been 
taken on how to consider RTAs with a dual notif ication status, and consensus was reached on 
removing the sub-items from the CTD's agenda.  WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 12 
 
 
  52. He said that he appreciated the Chairman's proposal to take up together the sub-items 
relating to the three RTAs with a dual notification.  There were clear similarities between the three, 
and India had common concerns about them.  He al so associated his delegation with the intervention 
by Egypt.  He recalled that issues relating to the GCC Customs Union notification were first discussed 
at the 69th Session of the CTD, under "Other Business".  Since the 73rd Session, the GCC Customs 
Union notification had appeared as a regular item, in itially at the request of the US.  He noted with 
concern that discussions had largely focused on pr ocedural issues.  In an effort to promote 
constructive and substantive enga gement, the delegations of China, Egypt and India had made a 
formal submission in September 2010, circulated  in document WT/COMTD/W/175.  However, the 
efforts of these three delegations remained futile.  For one thing, no substantive responses had been 
provided by other delegations, particularly the EU and the US.  In addition, the EU and the US had 
requested a duplicate agenda item without engaging  substantively on the concerns raised in the 
submission by China, Egypt and India.  
53. He went on to say that, at the 80th Session, some delegations had indicated that they had had 
limited time to consider the poi nts raised in document WT/COMTD/W/175.  Since several months 
had now elapsed since the 80th Session, India hoped that a substantive discussion could take place at 
the present meeting.  He did not want to summa rize the issues raised in WT/COMTD/W/175 but 
noted that they were listed in paragraph 4 of th e submission.  He additionally recalled that some 
Members had suggested that many of the issues rais ed in the submission should be discussed in the 
NGR.  In this regard, his delegation wished to hi ghlight once again that th e mandate of the NGR was 
limited and could not capture the entire gamut of systemic and specific concerns arising from the GCC Customs Union dual notification.  Furthermor e, as things stood at the present time, his 
delegation was not entirely sure of the future work schedule of NGR.  Therefore, it became even more 
important for Members to discuss the issue in the CTD.   
54. He informed the Committee that Members had been facing a blockage in the NGR over the 
same issue, particularly in view of a propo sal by the US, which was contained in document 
TN/RL/W/248.  The US proposal was that, irrespec tive of the notification provisions, all RTAs - 
including "dually notified" RTAs - should be consider ed in the CRTA.  While this was in line with the 
persistent and long-standing atte mpts of some developed country  Members to have all RTAs 
considered in the CRTA, from India's point of view such a way forward would undermine not only 
the Enabling Clause, but also the mandate and terms of reference of the CTD.  He added that India 
still remembered the questions that the US had ra ised in 2002 regarding the notification of the 
India-Sri Lanka Agreement under the Enabling Clause.  India was very clear that the US' position was to move the consideration of all RTAs to CRTA, even  if this would result in diminishing the role of 
the CTD and eroding its mandate.  He emphasized in th is regard that the CTD had a clear mandate to 
discuss developmental issues and to review RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause.  
55. Turning to the proposal that India had made in  the NGR, he said that this was a very 
reasonable proposal, which was supported by sever al developing countries.  The proposal was 
essentially that Members continue with the existi ng practice of considering RTAs notified under the 
Enabling Clause in the CTD, and RTAs notified under GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V in 
the CRTA.  The suggestion for "dually notified" RT As was that these be cons idered in the CTD for 
two main reasons, namely that the CTD had a mandate for review, and the Enabling Clause was 
lex specialis .  He noted that at the last CTD meeting, some delegations had requested the Chairman to 
make a pronouncement on whether any decision had been  taken with regard to the consideration of 
the GCC Customs Union.  Quoting from the minutes of  that meeting, he observed that the Chairman 
had stated that "it was very obvious that there we re differences between Members.  As there was no 
consensus, this meant that the issu e had not been resolved."  This clear opinion of the Chairman had 
to put to rest all confusion regarding the issue.   WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 13 
 
 
  56. He indicated that there were attempts to defl ect attention from critical developmental issues 
in the CTD, particularly from those Members who were suggesting that the NGR was a more 
appropriate forum for discussion.  From India's poi nt of view, there were some imperatives in moving 
forward.  First, the rights of developing count ry Members under the Enabling Clause needed to be 
respected.  Second, the pivotal role of the CTD in development-related issues needed not only to be 
maintained, but strengthened if the development asp irations enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement 
were to be realized.  Third, Members needed to  seriously engage in finding a resolution to the 
systemic and specific issues pertaining to the G CC Customs Union and the other RTAs with dual 
notifications, namely the ASEAN-Korea Agreement and the India-Korea Agreement.  
57. The representative of China expressed appreciation to the Chairman for having retained on 
the agenda the three sub-items under consideration.  He, however, wished to clarify that it was not 
China, Egypt and India that had requested to include these sub-ite ms on the agenda for the present 
meeting.  The only reason for their repeated a ppearance on the agenda was that one Member had 
made a request for one sub-item over two years ago,  and no satisfactory solution had yet been found.  
This was confirmed at the 81st Session by the former CTD Chairman.  In this light, the three sub-items 
had to remain on the agenda until the time that Members had exhausted their discussion and reached 
consensus to remove the sub-items.  
58. He went on to say that the sub-item concerni ng the notification of the GCC Customs Union 
had appeared on the CTD's agenda for ten consecutiv e CTD meetings.  As China, Egypt and India had 
stated repeatedly, the issue was not  simply a procedural one concerning the venue of consideration of 
the RTA.  More fundamentally, the issue related to  the legal rights and obligations of Members under 
WTO Agreements.  This was because the venue of consideration would determine the legal basis for 
the review, and the threshold for measuring the re viewed RTA's conformity with WTO rules.  The 
consequences of a review under different Committees  were also different.  A proper solution had to 
consist of several elements.  Among these, the ri ghts of developing country Members under the 
Enabling Clause had to be respected, especially the right to invoke paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling 
Clause.  In addition, the central role of the CT D in development-related issues, as stipulated in 
paragraph 1 of the CTD's terms of reference, needed to be maintained and strengthened.  
59. To help break the long-standing deadlock, China - together with Egypt and India - had 
tabled a joint communication in September 2010 illus trating numerous specific and systemic concerns 
arising from the dual notification of the GCC Customs Union.  The purpose of the paper was to 
remind Members of the complexity, and the impli cations, of dual notifications and to trigger 
brainstorming in order to find an appropriate solu tion.  However, the three delegations noted with 
deep disappointment that some Members had focu sed their efforts on endless quarrels regarding the 
formulation of the CTD's agenda rather than seri ously engaging in substan tive discussion.  Several 
specific and systemic issues listed in the submissi on by the three delegations still remained to be 
addressed.  
60. He said that, at the last CTD meeting, a number of surprising arguments had been made by 
some Members.  Among these was the argument that  the GCC Customs Union notification under the 
Enabling Clause was not a valid notification.  Othe r surprising arguments were that the Enabling 
Clause did not address customs unions, and that the GCC Customs Union notification was different 
from the notifications of the ASEAN-Korea Agreemen t and the India-Korea Agreement.  As China, 
Egypt and India had clearly indicated, it was firstly  a Member's prerogative to decide under which 
provision it wished to make a notification.  Othe r Members had no rights to challenge or draw any 
conclusion on the appropriateness of the legal b asis of a notification during the review process.  
Therefore, the assertion that the GCC Customs Union was not a case of a dual notification was 
baseless.  Furthermore, no provision in the Enab ling Clause precluded the possibility of addressing 
custom unions.  In fact, several custom unions had been notified under the Enabling Clause without 
any objection.  In addition, China, Egypt and In dia had not found any inherent difference among the WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 14 
 
 
  three "dually notified" RTAs.  The only obvious difference was that the GCC Customs Union was 
more complex, hence more time-consuming than the other two.  
61. He also noted that some Members had indicat ed that the agenda item "Notifications under 
the Enabling Clause" was only for transparency and information-sharing purposes, and that these 
objectives had been fulfilled with regard to the thre e "dually notified" RTAs. However, China, Egypt 
and India had a different view on this matter.  The CTD's long-standing discussion between 2006 and 
2009 on the EU's GSP scheme clearly demonstrat ed that the "Notifications under the Enabling 
Clause" item could touch upon issues that went far beyond procedural ones.  The request by the US 
for the sub-item concerning the GCC Customs Union notification - which had triggered substantive 
discussion on the legal interpretation of the Enab ling Clause, and the relationship between the 
Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV - was another example. 
62. He next turned to the suggestion by some Me mbers that the dual notification issue should be 
addressed in the NGR.  He said that China, Egypt and India did not have a fundamental objection to this, and had seriously engaged in the discussions in  the NGR.  However, some of the concerns that 
were illustrated in the submission by the three delega tions could not be fully resolved in the NGR.  He 
gave as an example the question of whether the En abling Clause could provide the legal justification 
for the formation of a customs union that involved th e elimination or reduction of non-tariff measures.  
Another example was the question of whether a Memb er's accession commitment to notify an RTA to 
the CRTA under GATT Article XXIV would have preceden ce over the rights of other parties to the 
same RTA to notify the agreement to the CTD under th e Enabling Clause.  He noted that an additional 
concern was the present stalemate in the Doha Round.  In light of this stalemate, it remained to be 
seen whether the discussion in NGR could yield any r esults in the near future.  He concluded by 
expressing his delegation's firm belief that Memb ers should discuss the issue in the CTD without 
further delay.  He urged the relevant Members to actively and constructively engage in the discussion. 
63. The representative of Egypt said that China, Egyp t and India had agreed to adopt the agenda 
for the present meeting on the understanding that th e sub-items concerning the notifications of the 
three RTAs with a dual notification appeared on the CTD's agenda not for transparency purposes, but 
as an integral part of the consideration of the RT As.  Furthermore, the three delegations had made a 
proposal on a way forward for the three RTAs, and no Member had commented on the proposal.  He, 
therefore, proposed a motion that the three RTAs be considered in a Dedicated Session of the CTD. 
The Chairman could then make the necessary pronouncement. 
64. The Chairman said that the issue under discu ssion was to be the subject of informal 
consultations. He asked whether Egypt could allo w the informal consultations to take place. 
65. The representative of Egypt said that the point  had been made that the present discussion 
was not an exercise in transparency.  Rather, what  was being discussed was the consideration of the 
RTAs with a dual notification.  Under the present agenda item, China, Egypt and India had presented 
their comments several times.  They had circulat ed a communication raising specific and systemic 
issues, they had deliberated on the issue and they had made a proposal on the way forward.  If there 
was consensus in the meeting room - and if no Member had any reservations on the arguments put 
forward by China, India and Egypt at the present meeting and at previous ones - he did not see any 
reason why a motion could not be put forward that th e RTAs with a dual notification be considered in 
a Dedicated Session of the CTD.  He added that the three delegations were more than willing to hear 
Members' views, reservations or comments, so that a substantive discussion could take place under 
the present agenda item.  He did not believe that any other agenda item was appropriate for such a 
discussion, or for the Committee to take a decision on the consideration of the RTAs in question. 
66. The representative of India said that he fully ag reed with the points that had been made by 
Egypt.  His understanding was that the Chairman woul d engage in informal consultations on issues of  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 15 
 
 
  nomenclature relating to the CTD's agenda, in con tinuation with what the previous CTD Chairman 
had been doing.  The implication was that there would be no informal consultations on issues of 
substance.  He indicated that the substance was being discussed in the CTD itself.  A very clear 
proposal had been made by Egypt.  Since no objections had been heard, he presumed that Members 
agreed with the proposal. 
67. The Chairman asked if any other Member wished to express a view on this matter. 
68. The representative of the United States asked the Chairman for confirmation that, as had 
earlier been indicated, informal consultations w ould continue to be held on this issue.   
69. The representative of Japan similarly asked fo r confirmation that the Chairman would be 
continuing the informal consultations.  With respect  to the three RTAs with a dual notification, he 
said that a part of these notifications had been made  in the CRTA.  Therefore, colleagues in the CRTA 
would need to be consulted.  In this light, Japan was not in a position to take a decision at the present 
meeting on the consideration process for these RTAs. 
70. The Chairman said that there was no consensus at  this time, and that informal consultations 
were necessary. 
71. The representative of Egypt said that it was his understanding that the process regarding 
RTAs with a dual notification was on hold in the CRTA.  In this light, he sought clarification as to 
what Japan wished to discuss with  colleagues in the CRTA.  He adde d that one conclusion that had 
come out of the informal consultations held by the previous CTD Chairman was that no decision had 
yet been taken on the consideration of the GCC Customs Union, the ASE AN-Korea Agreement and 
the India-Korea Agreement.  Since discussions on th is issue had not been exhausted, the three sub-
items concerning the RTAs with a dual notification n eeded to be maintained on the CTD's agenda, in 
line with the CTD's rules of procedures, as well as the practice.  With regard to the proposal that had 
been made at the present meeting on the way forwar d for the consideration of RTAs with the dual 
notification, the record showed that only one Memb er had indicated that it wished to consult with 
colleagues in the CRTA.  No other delegation had vo iced any substantive or procedural objections to 
the proposal.  In this light, he asked what would be the purpose of the Chairman's upcoming informal 
consultations, since Members were apparently only waiting for Japan to conclude its discussions with 
colleagues in the CRTA. 
72. The representative of the European Union said th at her delegation's sile nce up to this point 
should not be interpreted as consent.  As Member s knew, the EU had fundamental reservations with 
the way in which the issue was being addressed.  Her delegation looked forward to the informal 
consultations that were to be held in order to try to  find a way forward.  She regretted that the lack of 
engagement under the present agenda was interpreted as a free path to start the consideration process 
for the RTAs with a dual notification.  Member s had been discussing these matters for some time 
now, and it was clear that there was disagreement.  
73. The representative of Japan, in response to Egypt's request for clarification on Japan's 
position, said that the three RTAs with a dual notification had been notified to both the CTD and the 
CRTA.  In view of this, his delegation was not in a position to decide at the present time on the consideration process for these RTAs.  His delegation looked forward to participating in the informal 
consultations that would be held by the Chairman. 
74. The representative of China said that while  his delegation was open to the informal 
consultations that the Chairman would hold, he  wished to know what the objective of these 
consultations was.  He asked whether the Chairman  intended to address issues relating to the CTD's WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 16 
 
 
  agenda, or whether the objective was to discuss the venue of consideration of the three RTAs with a 
dual notification. 
75. The representative of India said that he wished  to comment on the point made by the EU 
regarding a lack of engagement.  He said that there had been a lack of engagement from some 
Members on this issue, and the focus of the CTD's discussions had been on procedures.  To facilitate 
substantive engagement, China, India and Egypt had ma de a formal submission.  Yet, in spite of this, 
substantive engagement was not forthcoming. He ad ded that he could not understand the point made 
by Japan.  Japan's position was that the CTD could not take a decision at the present meeting on the 
consideration of the three RTAs with a dual notifi cation, because notifications had been made to the 
CRTA as well as the CTD.  However, he recalled one CTD meeting in which some Members had 
tried to push through a decision in the CTD on th e venue of consideration of the GCC Customs 
Union.  While this had not met with consensus, th e efforts to push through such a decision pointed to 
a contradiction in Japan's position.  Finally, he asked  the Chairman for clarification on the nature of 
the upcoming informal consultations.  While the former CTD Chairman's consultations had been 
entirely on procedural issues, India believed that it was necessary to have substantive engagement 
involving a wide membership. 
76. The representative of Australia said that her de legation had not intended to take the floor 
under the present agenda item.  Australia was surp rised and disappointed to see the three sub-items 
appear once again on the CTD's agenda.  A significa nt amount of the Committee's time over the past 
few years had been spent discussing largely proce dural matters, which Members should be able to 
resolve in informal consultations - preferably before  the next formal CTD meeting.  She said that she 
had not heard any points in the present discussion that could not have been more appropriately made under agenda item E.  Given the clear interest of the demandeurs  in discussing the systemic issues 
raised in this context, she was puzzled by the continued resistance  to have a discussion under agenda 
item E.  She indicated that Australia was not in a position to take any decision under the present 
agenda item, but looked forward to actively engaging  in informal discussions with a view to resolving 
the issue as soon as possible.  
77. The representative of Canada said that it seem ed premature to address substantive issues 
before agreeing procedurally on how these issues w ould be looked at.  The informal consultations 
called by the Chairman needed to treat the procedural question first. 
78. The representative of New Zealand said that her delegation had not intended to take the 
floor on this issue.  However, with respect to th e motion that had been proposed by Egypt, she wished 
to indicate that New Zealand was not in a positio n to agree to any such action without further 
consultations.  
79. The Chairman said that the purpose of the informal consultations that he would be calling 
was to forge the consensu s necessary to allow the CTD to move forward.  
80. The representative of Egypt sought confirmation th at the informal consultations to be called 
by the Chairman would be substantive in nature, and would address the points raised by China, Egypt 
and India in their submission, as well as in the CTD.   To date, the three de legations had not received 
any substantive replies from Members.  He also hope d that the Chairman could confirm that Members 
would no longer discuss matters relating to the CTD' s agenda.  With regard to the agenda for a 
meeting, he observed that there were rules of pro cedure that needed to be followed, and these were 
not subject to interpretation or compromise.  He expressed appreciation to those delegations that had 
responded to his proposal for a motion.  However,  since discussions were not exhausted under the 
present agenda item, the three sub-items concerning RT As with a dual notification needed be retained 
until the issues were resolved.  Finally, in response to a point made by Australia, he said that China,  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Egypt and India had never restrained themselves from having a discussion, regardless of the agenda 
item. It was clear which delegations had been resisting an in-depth discussion. 
81. The Chairman reiterated that the purpose of his informal consultations was to forge 
consensus.  
82. The Committee took note of all interventions.  
- GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES - NOTIFICATION BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
(WT/COMTD /N/4/ADD.5) 
83. The Chairman said that the notification concerni ng the EU's new rules of origin in its GSP 
scheme had been circulated in document WT/COMTD/N /4/Add.5.  He recalled that at the last CTD 
meeting, the EU had already made a presentation on these new rules of origin and the document that 
was subsequently circulated as the notification to the CTD had been made available in the meeting 
room.  Since the Committee had already discussed the new rules of origin, he suggested that, for the record, the Committee take note of the notification.   
84. The representative of Egypt said that, at the last CTD meeting, his delegation had posed a 
number of questions to the EU on the new GSP rules of origin.  Egypt had, inter alia , asked how the 
GSP rules of origin compared to the rules of or igin in the "Pan Euro Med" context and in the 
Economic Partnership Agreement protocols.  Egyp t had also asked whether a drawback rule was 
applied.  His delegation was hoping to receive responses from the EU at the present meeting.  
85. The representative of the European Union said th at the EU's new GSP rules of origin had 
been introduced in both the CT D and in the Sub-Committee for LDCs.  She did recall that Egypt had 
posed a number of questions at the last CTD meeting.   Since the questions were technical in nature, 
she had invited Egypt to submit the questions in wr iting, so that they could be forwarded to her 
colleagues in Brussels.  She once again invited the Egyptian representative to submit the questions in 
writing. 
86. The Committee took note  of the  notification by the EU.  
- GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES - NOTIFICATION BY JAPAN 
(WT/COMTD /N/2/ADD.15) 
87. The Chairman said that the notification by  Japan had been circulated in document 
WT/COMTD/N/2/Add.15.  He invited the representati ve of Japan to introduce the notification. 
88. The representative of Japan said that Japan 's GSP scheme applied reduced tariffs on 
designated imported goods originating from developi ng countries or territories, with the aim of 
helping them to increase their export income, to ad vance their industrialization and to promote their 
economic development.  Through the implementation of the scheme, Japan believed that it had been 
contributing to the economic devel opment of developing countries.  The scheme entered into force on 
1 August 1971, and had been revised every ten years.   The previous version of Japan's GSP scheme 
had expired on 31 March 2011, but in line with the GSP policy objectives and expected benefits from 
the scheme, Japan had decided to extend the scheme until 31 March 2021.  The renewal - which 
became effective on 1 April 2011 - also came with some amendments, with a view to enhancing the 
transparency and simplicity of the GSP scheme, and providing more balanced market access opportunities among GSP beneficiaries.  
89. In the context of the renewal, Japan had fi rstly had decided to a bolish import ceilings.  
Previously, if certain industrial products exceeded  the ceiling, the preferential treatment would be WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 18 
 
 
  suspended.  Under the revised scheme, however, beneficiary countries could enjoy the preferential 
treatment until the end of each fiscal year, regardless of the amount imported.  Second, for the purpose of sharing preferential benefits equally among developing countries, Japan had revised the 
criteria for the application of the competitiven ess-focused, product-by-exclusion measure.  The 
criteria were now more objective and transparent, and properly put even more emphasis on international competitiveness.  According to the ne w criteria, Japan could exclude for a period of 
three years certain products from GSP coverage for a beneficiary.  This was on the condition that the 
import volume of a given product from that beneficiary accounted for more than 50 per cent of Japan's 
total import volume for that product in the previous three years, and that import values for the product 
exceeded 1.5 billion yen.  While Japan's scheme formerly had qualitative criteria in place, such 
criteria - which were related to th e effects on domestic industries - had been abolished.  As a result, 
Japan's GSP scheme would now be able to promote a more equal sharing of preferential benefits 
among developing countries. 
90. The third amendment concerned a relaxation of  the GSP preferential rules of origin on 
textile and clothing products, so  as to expand opportunities for developing countries to utilize the 
scheme.  Formerly, developing count ries were required to follow three steps - from fiber to cloth and 
from cloth to cloths - but in the revised scheme only two steps - from cloth to cloths - were required.  In addition, he said that Oman, Trinidad and Toba go, and Barbados had been graduated from the list 
of GSP beneficiaries, as they were classified as "high income economies" in the previous three 
consecutive years by the World Ba nk.  These were standard and objective criteria used by the 
international community.  Furthermore, since the Ma ldives had been officially taken off the UN's list 
of LDCs on 1 January 2011, this country would gr aduate from the list of LDC special beneficiaries 
under Japan's GSP scheme as from 1 July 2011.  With  regard to special preferences for LDCs, no 
amendment had been made.  Finally, he informed  Members that details of the GSP scheme were 
available on the website of Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  
91. The representative of Egypt asked whether Japan  could provide some clarification on the 
product coverage of its GSP scheme.  He also asked for confirmation as to whether the amended 
scheme had entered into force.  He observed that  several GSP schemes were being discussed in the 
CTD, but not all of them had been renewed.  
92. The representative of Japan said that, of the a pproximately 9,000 tariff lines in the Japanese 
tariff system, 3,100 lines were duty free.  Japan's GSP scheme dealt with about 3,500 lines of the 
remaining 5,900.  On Egypt's second question, he confirmed that Japan's amended GSP scheme had 
entered into force.  He also reiterated that Japan's GSP scheme had existed for 40 years, with 
amendments being made every ten years. 
93. The Committee took note of the notification by Japan.  
E. SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC ISSUES ARISING OU T OF THE DUAL NOTIFICATION OF THE GULF 
COOPERATION COUNCIL CUSTOMS UNION - COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA , EGYPT AND INDIA 
(WT/COMTD /W/175) 
94. The Chairman said that he would first invite the EU and the US to take the floor, since it 
was these delegations that had requested the present agenda item.  He once again reminded Members 
of the discussion that had taken place at the last meet ing, and therefore encouraged interventions to be 
brief.  He said that the floor was open to the two proponents. 
95. The representative of the United States said that  his delegation was not a proponent of the 
submission that was listed in the title of the present agenda item.  He said that he deferred to the 
authors and proponents of the submission in question.   WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 19 
 
 
  96. The representative of the European Union said that, at the previous CTD meeting, her 
delegation had offered some comments on the communication by China, Egypt and India on 
"Systemic and specific issues arising out of the dual notification of the Gulf Cooperation Council 
Customs Union".  The EU had indicated that th e communication did indeed address the important 
systemic issue of some RTAs having been notified under two legal provisions, namely the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV.  She said that this was an issue of systemic importance, which was 
why it was being discussed in the context of the revi ew of the RTAs TM.  The discussions within the 
NGR, to which the communication could be transmitted, would clarify the procedures which an 
agreement that had been notified twice should follo w.  She observed that the CRTA respected this 
way of proceeding.  She noted that Egypt and Indi a had referred to India's proposal in the NGR on 
how to deal with the issue of dual notifications.  These delegations had also  mentioned that, pending 
discussions in the NGR, the consideration of the GCC Customs Union and other "dually notified" 
RTAs was put on hold.  The EU was, therefore, su rprised that it had been suggested at the present 
meeting to already jump to the consideration stage. 
97. She said that the NGR was the correct forum to  discuss any emerging systemic issue related 
to RTAs.  In that context, it would be the right venue for any possible systemic discussion to clarify 
the rules governing the creation of RTAs, includi ng the scope of the Enabling Clause and GATT 
Article XXIV.  Her delegation was not trying to a void a substantive engageme nt, but simply believed 
that the NGR was a more suitable forum.  The EU did not see the advantages in continuing to dwell 
on the matter in the CTD, when the matter was be ing discussed in the NGR, and when the NGR had a 
clear negotiating mandate to review the RTAs TM and to address systemic issues related to RTAs.  The EU looked forward to a final solution being found in the NGR, which the CTD would no doubt 
take note of and apply. 
98. The representative of Egypt thanked the EU for its preliminary comments on some of the 
points that had been raised by China, Egypt and I ndia.  He noted, however, that he had not heard any 
counter-arguments or reasonable answers.  In this light, he requested that Egypt's statement from the 
last CTD meeting - which laid out the numerous point s raised by the three delegations - be included in 
the records of the present meeting as part  of the discussion under this agenda item.2  He explained that 
he had not heard anything that he could convey to  his capital as responses to the numerous questions 
and arguments that had been put forward.  When his capital asked him what had transpired at the 
present meeting, he would have to respond that he had read out his statement again.  
99. In response to the remarks that had been made  by the EU, he said that Members could keep 
attempting to push issues into the NGR, have them  blocked in the NGR and then see them coming 
back to the CTD.  This was, however, becoming irr itating.  He also asked what the EU would do in 
the hypothetical situation in which the Doha Round was suspended, or was declared to have failed.  
He in particular wished to know how the EU c ould continue negotiating systemic issues - or the 
review of the RTAs TM - in the NGR, since the work  of this body formed part of the Doha Round.  
He added that the NGR was in a deadlock over the issue of dual notifications.  The US had made a 
proposal on the issue, and a counter-proposal had been  made by India.  In his delegation's view, the 
US proposal called for a fundamental restructuring of  the WTO, as it implied an elimination of the 
role of the CTD in examining RTAs.  The Indian  proposal, on the other hand, was a compromise 
proposal. According to this proposal, the current practice of the CRTA considering RTAs notified 
under Article XXIV and the CTD considering RTAs  notified under the Enabling Clause would be 
maintained.  The only addition to existing procedures was that the goods parts of "dually notified" RTAs would be considered in the CTD. In his delegation's view, this would amount to a minor 
amendment of the RTAs TM.  
                                                      
2 The intervention by Egypt at the 81st Session of the CTD can be found in the Annex to this Note. WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 20 
 
 
  100. He went on to say that the improvement of the RTAs TM was only one aspect of the 
numerous points that had been put forward by China, Egypt and India.  Other issues concerned the scope and interpretation of the Enabling Clause.  Th e question was raised, for example, as to whether 
the Enabling Clause allowed the reduction and elimina tion of non-tariff measures.  There were also 
issues relating to the fact that the GCC Customs Union had been notified in 1984 under the Enabling 
Clause. Since no Member had raised any objection to the notification at the time, he did not understand why some Members were doing so now.  Furthermore, his delegation considered the 2007 
Enabling Clause notification of the GCC Customs Union to be a subsequent notification, and not the 
notification of the customs union itself.  
101. The representative of India expressed concer n that a substantive discussion was being 
avoided by some Members.  These Members had in dicated that the "Notifications under the Enabling 
Clause" item was not the correct agenda item to ha ve such a discussion.  However, under the agenda 
item requested by these Members, the Committee was simply told th at the NGR was the appropriate 
place for the discussion.  This was the crux of the problem, and delegations would need to get past 
this in order to resolve the issue.  He also e xpressed concern with the US' position that customs unions 
could only be notified under GATT Article XXIV, and that an Enabling Clause notification of a 
customs union was not a valid notification.  This  was causing a lot of uncertainty for developing 
countries.  The US' position effectively sought to undermine the availability of the Enabling Clause 
for developing countries to conclude and notify RTAs.  He recalled in this regard the references India 
had previously made to the CTD's consider ation of the India-Sri Lanka Agreement.  
102. He added that India was unsure if developing  countries should expect legal challenges from 
the US regarding RTAs among developing countr ies that had been notified under the Enabling 
Clause.  He referred to the article by Susan Schw ab, the former US Trade Representative, which had 
appeared in the May-June 2011 edition of Foreign Affairs .  He said that, in the article, Ms Schwab 
had suggested that "interested Members should consider using focused WTO cases and dispute 
settlements to target poor-quality b ilateral and regional trade agreemen ts that fail to meet the letter 
and spirit of the WTO's requirement that such agreem ents cover substantially all trade".  He presumed 
that Ms Schwab understood that there was no agreed  figure to define "substantially all trade".  
Furthermore, he hoped that Ms Schwab recogni zed that the Enabling Cl ause was available to 
developing countries to enter into bilateral and regi onal trade agreements, and that she did not equate 
"poor quality" RTAs with RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause.  In conclusion, he said that some 
RTAs among developed country Members also had low trade coverage and long transition periods. 
103. The representative of China expr essed support for the interventions by Egypt and India.  As 
China, Egypt and India had already stated several times, the mandate of the NGR was quite limited, 
and could not address all the concerns  and questions raised in their joint submission.  Even the NGR 
Chairman had requested the CTD to provide a repor t on any problems faced in the implementation of 
the RTAs TM.  In China's view, the CTD had the ma ndate and the capacity to undertake analysis on 
the dual notification issue.  The entire scope of work could not simply be shifted to the NGR. 
104. The representative of the United States said that  his delegation had explained its arguments 
in detail in previous CTD meetings.  The US di d not find it useful to repeat the same points, 
particularly in light of the informal consultations th at were to be held by the Chairman to attempt to 
resolve the systemic concerns that had been raised , or to refer the concerns to the appropriate WTO 
body for consideration.  
105. The representative of Egypt said that the US ha d indicated for the first time its willingness 
to talk about substance and systemic issues in the upcoming informal consultations, and not simply to 
discuss the agenda for the next CTD meeting.  He welcomed this.  He also noted that the US had 
mentioned that systemic issues could be referred to  the appropriate WTO body for consideration.  
However, since the CTD was the focal point for the integrated treatment of any development-related  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 21 
 
 
  issue, and since the systemic issues being discussed  related to the scope of the Enabling Clause and 
developing countries' rights to invoke the Enabling Clause, Egypt did not see what other WTO body the US was referring to.  Noting that the NGR would not exist as a forum to tackle systemic issues if 
the Doha Round no longer existed, he asked the US for further clarification.  
106. The representative of the United States request ed the Egyptian representative to allow 
Members and the Chairman to speak for themselves,  and to not put words in their mouths.  With 
respect to the purpose of the informal consultations , he drew Members' attention to the Chairman's 
intention, which was to find consensus in order to move forward.  He indicated that he remained 
optimistic in this regard. 
107. The Committee took note of all interventions.   
F. MODALITIES TO IMPLEMENT THE TRANSPARENC Y MECHANISM FOR PREFERENTIAL TRADE 
ARRANGEMENTS - STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN  
108. The Chairman said that he would shortly invite  Members to consider the informal document 
titled "Modalities to implement the Transparency Mechanism for Preferential Trade Arrangements" 
that had been sent to them by fax.  A possible sta ndard format for the notification of PTAs to the CTD 
had also been sent to Members with the same fax.  He said that he wished to make a few introductory 
comments on the process that had brough t the Committee to this point. 
109. He recalled that, at the previous CTD meeting, his predecessor had made some preliminary 
remarks regarding the implementation of the TM for PTAs.  To build on the preliminary remarks of 
his predecessor, and to get some feedback on how th e Mechanism could be implemented in a practical 
sense, he had held some informal consultations with a small group of Members.  The informal 
document that had been sent to Members had been prepared on the basis of those consultations.  The 
document contained the text of the PTAs TM, as well a number of modalities for implementation, 
which had been placed in italics in the document.  The modalities were meant to serve as guidelines as 
to how the Mechanism was to be implemented in pr actical terms.  The notification format had been 
prepared as an outcome of the informal consu ltations, as one of the implementation guidelines. 
110. He said that there was no intention to formally revise or modify the agreed text of the TM 
that was contained in document WT/L/806.  The guidelines had been placed under relevant paragraphs in the informal document only to help  Members better appreciate how the Mechanism was 
to be implemented.  The text of the TM was bei ng used as a tool for this purpose, since Members 
could see which paragraphs the modalities related to. While the guidelines were important for 
Members and the Secretariat to have the necessary clarity to implement the PTAs TM, the modalities 
were only being put forward in an effort to be gin the implementation of the Mechanism.  There 
would, however, certainly be opportunities in the future to revisit how the Mechanism was being 
implemented.  He added that the issues raised in  the informal document might not be the only ones 
that would need to be addressed in the implemen tation of the PTAs TM.  Members might need to 
consider making additional clarifications in the future, as experience was gained in the 
implementation of the Mechanism.  He believed th at Members would agree that the CTD's work in 
implementing the Mechanism should not duplicate the work of other WTO bodies.  This was something to be avoided, and might be one of the things to be looked at in the future.
3 
111. He went on to provide a brief overview of th e modalities for implementation that were laid 
out in the informal document.  A first clarificati on related to paragraph 1(c) of the PTAs TM, which 
                                                      
3 The remainder of the discussion  under this agenda item took pl ace in informal mode. What is 
reproduced below is what, on the basis of the discussi on, Members agreed would be reflected in the formal 
minutes of the meeting.  WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 22 
 
 
  formed part of the paragraph dealing with the cove rage of the Mechanism.  The guideline here was 
that, for practical purposes in implementing the Me chanism, paragraph 1(c)  should be understood to 
cover "any other non-reciprocal preferential tr eatment to products authorized under the WTO 
Agreement".  He explained that the reference "to products" would allow paragraph 1(c) to be 
consistent with the language  found in paragraph 1(b).  This clarif ied that services were not included in 
the coverage of the Mechanism. 
112. He said that he wished to move on to the procedures to consider PTAs that entered into 
force after the adoption of the TM.  Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Mechanism laid out the notification 
requirements for these PTAs.  The modalities clarified that the notification would be made to the CTD 
through a written communication, which would be circulated as a CTD document.  In the process of finalizing the factual presentation for a PTA, the modalities indicated a number of time-frames to 
clarify what was laid out in paragraph 7(c) of the TM.  The notifying Member would, in the first 
instance, submit comments to the Secretariat on th e draft factual presentation within a four-week 
period.  This followed the current practice in the implementation of the TM for RTAs.  After 
incorporating these comments, as appropriate, the Secretariat would,  through a fax, inform Members 
receiving benefits under the PTA that the draft was ready for their viewing.  Beneficiary Members that requested to view the draft would submit comme nts to the Secretariat within three weeks of the 
date of the fax.  If further modifications were ma de by the Secretariat to the draft on the basis of 
comments by beneficiary Members, the Secretariat would share the draft once more with the notifying 
Member.  The notifying Member would submit any further comments within a two-week period, after 
which the factual presentation would be finalized  and circulated as a CTD document.      
113. With regard to the additional exchange of in formation specified in paragraph 11 of the PTAs 
TM, the modalities pointed to the current practice in the implementation of the TM for RTAs.  In particular, after a meeting of the CTD's Dedicat ed Session on PTAs, Members would have one week 
to submit any further written questions on a PTA th at was considered.  The notifying Member would 
then have two weeks to provide written responses.  The questions and responses would be circulated 
as a CTD document. 
114. He invited the Committee to next turn to br oader issues which also applied to PTAs that 
were in force when the PTAs TM was adopted.  He suggested that the modalities in this context be 
appreciated in terms of making the electronic da tabase on PTAs as extensive and as up to date as 
possible.  While the text of the TM distinguished  between a "guide" to a PTA - which was to be 
prepared for PTAs which entered into force after th e adoption of the Transpar ency Mechanism - and a 
"factual abstract" of a PTA - which was to be pr epared for PTAs in force when the Mechanism was 
adopted - the modalities indicated that the informat ion requirements to complete the guide and the 
factual abstract were quite similar.  Therefore, in order to make the information in the electronic 
database on PTAs uniform across all PTAs, and as exte nsive as possible, the two sets of information 
requirements would be merged to prepare an "abstract/guide" for each PTA.  The information 
required to complete the "abstract/ guide" would be incorporated into the electronic database on PTAs.  
Thus, for any given PTA, the specified internet li nks and statistics would be found on the web pages 
devoted to that PTA in the PTAs database.  The "a bstract/guide" would not be circulated as a CTD 
document.  The Secretariat would put together the information requirements to complete the 
"abstract/guide" for each PTA to place on the PTAs database in full consultation with the Member 
implementing the PTA. 
115. An "abstract/guide" would be prepared for PTAs that entered into force after the adoption of 
the Mechanism; for PTAs that were  in force when the Mechanism w as adopted and were previously 
notified through a written communi cation submitted by the implementing Member in any WTO body;  
and for PTAs that were in force when the M echanism was adopted but  for which a written 
communication was not previously submitted in any WTO body by the implementing Member.  He 
said that this would allow the electronic database on PT As to be complete, to the extent that it would  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 23 
 
 
  contain information on all PTAs being implemented by Members.  For a PTA that was in force when 
the Mechanism was adopted, but had not yet been  notified, the modalities specified that the 
implementing Member would notify the PTA at the earliest possible date - not later than 
14 December 2011 - through a written communicati on, which would be circulated as a CTD 
document. 
116. Also to ensure that the PTAs database w as as up-to-date and extensive as possible, the 
Secretariat and Members would maintain informal contact.  As part of this informal contact, Members implementing PTAs would inform the Secretariat as soon as possible of any changes to website 
addresses, so that the internet links  provided on the PTAs database re mained valid.  If, for any PTA in 
force when the TM was adopted, the Secretariat did not  have the information sp ecified in paragraph 4, 
the Secretariat would inform the Member implemen ting the PTA so that the information could be 
obtained.  Finally, he said that he would conclude  his overview of the modalities with a word on the 
communications to be submitted unde r paragraph 15 of the TM, whic h concerned changes affecting 
the implementation of a PTA during a calendar year.  In particular, the modalities specified that these 
communications would be circulated as CTD documents. 
117. The Committee took note of the Chairman's st atement and agreed to the modalities to 
implement the Transparency Mechanism for PTA s.  The Committee also  adopted the proposed 
standard format for the notification of PTAs to the CTD.4  In addition, the Co mmittee agreed with the 
Chairman's proposal that the Secretariat would prepare a preliminary, informal, list of PTAs being 
implemented by WTO Members, which would be shared with Members for their feedback.  The 
Chairman remarked that, until new PTAs entered into force, the list would provide clarity as to which 
PTAs would initially form part of the electronic da tabase that the Secretaria t was in the process of 
establishing. 
G. REVIEW OF STEPS T AKEN TO PROVIDE DUTY -FREE AND QUOTA -FREE MARKET ACCESS TO 
LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES  
118. The Chairman said that an item concerning the Hong Kong Decision on duty-free and 
quota-free (DFQF) market access for LDCs had been on the CTD's agenda since early 2006.  Under 
this item, delegations had provided information on the steps they we re taking, or had already taken, to 
provide DFQF market access to LDCs.  Written co mmunications by some Members had also been 
considered.  The CTD had to date undertaken five of its mandated annual reviews of the 
implementation of the Hong Kong Decision.  He aske d if any Member wished to take the floor under 
this agenda item. 
119. The representative of India said that paragra ph 47 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration 
placed an obligation on developed countries to provi de DFQF market access for products originating 
from LDCs.  The Declaration also encouraged deve loping country Members declaring themselves in a 
position to do so, to provide such treatment to LDCs' products.  The Duty Free Tariff Preference 
(DFTP) Scheme for LDCs was announced by the Indian  Prime Minister of India in April 2008.  India 
was, therefore, the first developing country to  announce a comprehensive scheme under the DFQF 
mandate. 
120.  He recalled that his delegation had previous ly provided details of the DFTP Scheme. To 
date, letters of intent had been received from 27 LDCs, although only 22  LDCs had submitted the 
details of their signatory authorities so far.  He urged the remaining LDCs to finalize their internal 
processes, and to intimate to India their willingness to avail of the benefits under this Scheme, and 
more generally to benefit from I ndia's substantial market access opening to the LDCs.  He also 
indicated that India remained open to the feedb ack it received from beneficiary countries.  For 
                                                      
4 The standard format was subsequently  circulated as doc ument WT/COMTD/73. WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 24 
 
 
  example, Cambodia had requested a simplificati on of the procedures under the rules of origin 
pertaining to registered vessels.  Requests for th e inclusion of such prod ucts as cashews, milk 
products, tea and coffee, and sesame seeds had b een received from Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and 
Ethiopia respectively.  
121. He added that the DFTP Scheme was only a baseline scheme. Several LDCs received 
concessions over and above the preferences available under the Scheme.  At the 2nd Africa–India 
Forum Summit held in May 2011, India had committ ed to offer US$ 5 billion over three years under 
lines of credit to help Africa achieve its developm ent goals.  Additionally, US$ 700 million would be 
offered to establish new institutions and training pr ogrammes in consultation with the African Union 
and its institutions.  India had also proposed the est ablishment of new institutions at the pan-African 
level.  These included an India-Africa Food Processing Cluster, as well as an India-Africa Integrated Textiles Cluster to support the cotton industry thro ugh the processing and conversion of cotton into 
high-value products.  Other examples included an India-Africa Centre for Medium Range Weather 
Forecasting - to harness satellite technology for the ag riculture and fisheries sectors and to contribute 
to disaster preparedness and the management of natural resources - an India-Africa Institute of 
Agriculture and Rural Development and an India-A frica University for Life and Earth Sciences.  
122. The representative of China said that the review  of the steps taken to provide DFQF market 
access to LDCs was an important item on the CTD's agenda.  This was particularly the case at the 
present time, given that Members were considering having some deliverables for the LDCs by the end 
of 2011, before the Doha Round w as concluded.  As had already been stated on previous occasions, 
China supported the delivery of an LDC package - of which DFQF was a core element - at the 
8th Ministerial Conference.  China believed that  the faithful implementation of the Hong Kong 
mandate on DFQF would not only provide the long-awaited support for the poorest, but would also help preserve the creditability and relevance of the multilateral trading system.  
123. As a developing country faced with numer ous development challenges, China fully 
understood the difficulties confronted by LDCs in their economic development.  China was doing its 
utmost to expand its bilateral c ooperation with the LDCs, including through the provision of DFQF 
market access for LDCs' products.  In 2001, China ha d started to provide DFQF treatment to products 
imported from LDCs.  The scope of both beneficiar ies and products had b een expanding gradually 
since then.  In September 2008, at the UN High-Level Plenary Meeting on the Millennium 
Development Goals, the Chinese Premier had announced  that China would apply DFQF treatment for 
LDCs' products on 95 per cent of tariff  lines.  Since 1 July 2010, China was offering such treatment to 
LDCs' products on 4,762 tariff lines, accounting for roughly 60 per cent of total tariff lines.  He noted that this treatment, together with many other bila teral initiatives, had made important contributions to 
the economic and trade cooperation between China a nd the relevant countries.  In particular, WTO 
data showed that, since 2008, China had become the world's largest export destination for LDCs, 
absorbing 23 per cent of LDCs' total exports.  Compar ing this to the 10.9 per cent figure registered in 
2000, he said that the annual growth rate of Chin a's imports from LDCs during the 2000-2009 period 
was 24 per cent, which was much higher than that of any other Member.  
124. He noted that the scope of DFQF treatment  had been established based on China's past 
experience importing from LDCs, as well as through amicable consultations with the LDCs.  The 
purpose was to include items with demonstrable  export capacity, both actual and potential.  The 
60 per cent tariff line coverage had already accounted for 98.2 per cent of all LDCs' exports to China 
in value terms in 2008.  China would continue to ex pand the scope of coverage in order to achieve the 
final objective of 95 per cent of lines under zero-tariff treatment.  Finally, he observed that almost six years had passed since the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  The uneven and fragile economic 
recovery should prompt all Members to demonstrat e their firm determination to retain an open and 
fair multilateral trading system, as well as their good faith in honouring th eir commitments towards 
the LDCs.   WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 25 
 
 
  125. The representative of Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group, recalled that Ministers had 
agreed that the Doha Round would be a development Round, and that the issues of developing 
countries - in particular the LDCs - would form th e core of the Round.  He believed that DFQF for 
LDCs was the centre point of the development dimensi on.  In this regard, he recalled that the Hong 
Kong Ministerial Declaration had further articul ated the issue.  The LDC Group welcomed and 
appreciated the steps that had been taken by sever al Members to meaningfully enhance the market 
access available for products origin ating from the LDCs.  However, there was still ample room for 
work to be done by the develope d countries - as well as the devel oping countries in a position to do so 
- to fully and effectively implement the Hong Kong Decision, including through the simplification of 
rules of origin.  He called on Members to live up  to the spirit and letter of the mandate in the 
Hong Kong Declaration.  He also expressed appreci ation that there was broad-based consensus on the 
LDC-specific issues, and indicated that the 8th Ministerial Conference would be an opportunity to 
deliver on DFQF market access for LDCs.  He called upon the Secretariat to enlighten Members with a factual presentation on the status of DFQF implementation.  Finally, he said that he looked forward 
to engaging constructively with Members on the DFQF  issue with a view to an early implementation. 
126. The Committee took note of all interventions. 
H. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND TRAINING5 
(i) Annual Report on Technical Assistance and Training, 1 January to 31 December 2010 
(WT/COMTD/W/178) 
(ii) Technical Cooperation Audit Report for 2010 (WT/COMTD/W/177 and Corr.16) 
127. The Chairman said that there were two reports  for consideration under this agenda item, 
namely the Annual Report on Technical Assistance and Training (TA Report) for 2010 - circulated as 
document WT/COMTD/W/178 - and the Technical C ooperation Audit Report for 2010 - circulated as 
document WT/COMTD/W/177.  A corrigendum to the Audit Report, in English and Spanish only, 
had also been issued.  He invited the Director of  the Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation 
(ITTC) and the Head of the Technical Cooperati on Audit Unit (TCAU) to introduce the TA Report 
and the Audit Report, respectively. 
128. The Director of the ITTC said that he would only make a few brief remarks, as the TA 
Report had been circulated and regular discussions on technical assistance (TA) were taking place 
with the different regional groups. His first point concerned the finalization of the reforms - in 
particular in the context of the "progressive learning" initiative, which permitted coherence and 
continuity between the different levels of traini ng in the WTO.  The implementation of the reforms 
had initially led to problems for some beneficiaries who, due to technical difficulties, could not access 
the "e-learning" facilities.  Many of these difficultie s had been resolved, and it was now possible to 
access "e-learning" without the same problems.  On  the introduction of RBM in the WTO - since the 
end of 2010, but particularly from the beginning of 2011 - he expressed his thanks to a number of 
Members that had made available their experience a nd knowledge in this area.  Members had had the 
opportunity to discuss RBM at an informal CTD held earlier in 2011, and would have another 
opportunity when the Technical Assistance and Training Plan (TA Plan) for the 2012-2013 period was considered by the Committee.  
                                                      
5 Agenda item H was considered immediately af ter item C on 21 June.  This was because the 
Secretariat representatives who were to present the repo rts under item H were not able to stay until the end of 
the meeting, due to another commitment.  The Committee therefore agreed, on the basis of a proposal by the 
Chairman, to consider item H earlier.       
6 In English and Spanish only. WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 26 
 
 
  129. He said that, in 2010, priority had been give n to TA activities concerning African countries 
and LDCs.  Priority had also been given to colla boration with regional institutions.  Efforts were 
additionally being made to strengt hen coordination with other intern ational organizations providing 
trade-related technical assistance (TRTA).  He men tioned in this regard the Global Trade-Related 
Technical Assistance Database (GTAD), which pr ovided extensive information on TRTA activities 
that would take place in 2012.  He added that th e ITTC was working with parliaments, with the 
private sector and with the media.  The ITTC had also reinforced its cooperation with universities and 
with academia, especially through the launching of WTO Chairs Programme.  Finally, he thanked the 
donors for their support. Observing that some delays had been encountered in 2011 in the 
disbursement of funds, he expressed his hope that the reminders that had been sent to various capitals 
would allow the ITTC to continue with it s activities in the best possible conditions.  
130. The Head of the TCAU said that, in anticipa tion of the introduction of RBM in the WTO, 
the 2010 Technical Cooperation Audit Report focused on TA output - including the number of 
activities, the duration of the activities, the numbe r of participants, the subjects covered and the 
teaching methods - before addressing the immediate and longer-term outcome of the activities for 
beneficiary countries.  A novelty of the 2010 Audit Report was the availability of statistics on the 
various training methods used in the activities.  It was found that lectures represented only half of the 
total training time, with more interactive met hods such as question and answer sessions, exercises and 
simulations accounting for the balance.  This ga ve a measure of the progress already made by the 
Secretariat on this front over the past decade.  He observed that the immediate outcome of a TA 
activity – the difference that an activity made for its participants – had traditionally been measured 
through the self-evaluation presented by the trainers in a back-to-office report (BTOR).  Such reports 
typically presented the views of the participants on the activity instead of relying on more objective 
indicators, such as the results of quizzes or exercis es, even when such info rmation was available. 
Efforts were, therefore, being made to use more precise indicators. 
131. He went on to say that, as in 2009, the analysis of the longer-term outcome of the TA 
provided by the WTO over the years in a limited number of countries had shown some positive effects 
and impact, in particular on the compliance with their WTO obligations.  More time was, however, needed before the eviden ce collected could be considered as being sufficiently representative.  
Finally, he said that, in 2010, the TCAU had revi ewed in some detail two e-training courses and the 
first Advanced Trade Policy Course (ATPC) in orde r to test how progressive the training path for 
generalists was.  This had led to  the formulation of various reco mmendations to better define what 
was meant by each of the three levels of progressive  learning and to recast the programme of activities 
accordingly.  To be consistent with the new stru cture of the Audit Report, the results of these 
evaluations had been broken down between output and immediate outcome. 
132. The representative of the United States said th at his delegation's initial look at the TA 
Report had been positive.  He noted, however, that the report had only recently been issued and that 
his delegation - and possibly other delegations - w ould need more time to review it in detail and 
provide any comments to the Secretariat.   
133. The representative of the European Union said that the TA Report had been received very 
late and might merit further consideration and discussion.  Her delegation, however, had some 
preliminary comments on both the TA Report and the Audit Report.  She firstly commended the 
efforts made by the Secretariat to introduce RBM to ols in its work and noted that the Audit Report 
had adjusted its focus in anticipation of the intr oduction of RBM.  She particularly welcomed the 
attempt in the Audit Report to look at longer-term im pacts of WTO technical cooperation, for instance 
in terms of improved compliance with WTO obligati ons and more active partic ipation in negotiations. 
Her delegation understood that the Secretariat wa s at the beginning of a process to introduce RBM, 
and wished in future meetings of the CTD to be kept informed of the progr ess that was being made 
and to have the opportunity to discuss pertinent is sues in more detail.  For example, the EU had  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 27 
 
 
  questions regarding how indicators and base lines woul d be set and how the Secretariat would collect 
information on the evolution of such indicators.  
134. She noted from the Audit Report that the Secret ariat had up to the present relied mainly on 
BTORs by trainers as well as self-evaluation.  In this regard, she agreed that these needed to be 
complemented by more objective indicators of im mediate output such as the results of quizzes and 
tests, as well as indicators of longer-term impact.  She welcomed the steps taken to improve internal 
coordination within the Secretariat on TA, including through the setting up of a task force, as well as 
efforts to coordinate with other agencies.  Noting that Aid for Trade for most donors was 
decentralized in the field, she encouraged Secretariat staff to meet donor representatives when on 
mission in order to get a sense of the activities u ndertaken or planned.  This would help build 
synergies and avoid costly overlaps.  
135. She also welcomed the Secretar iat's increased partnership with other institutions - notably 
regional ones - in the delivery of training and t echnical cooperation, as well as the increased regional 
focus of the activities.  The EU wished to know  if these initiatives had brought positive results.  She 
welcomed the continued focus on Africa and the LD Cs as well as the practical approach that was 
taken for many activities - for example, concrete tr aining on scheduling and notifications, which had 
led to a welcome increase in no tifications themselves.  She also  noted that Trade Policy Reviews 
(TPRs) were increasingly being used as a way to di scern information about the TA and training needs 
of the partner countries.  She welcomed this and stressed once again the importance of closely liaising 
and communicating with donors present in the field so  as to dovetail, and not undermine, other types 
of needs assessments that might be carried out.  She additionally noted that the Secretariat was 
planning a review of the activities that were carried  out in the context of the WTO Chairs Programme 
in order to assess the contribution that had been made  in 2010.  Her delegation wished to be informed 
of the outcome of this review.  Information was al so sought on the feedback  received from the users 
of the reference centres, which was in line w ith the present orientation towards results.  
136. She added that her delegation had a suggestion on how to present the budget, which was 
currently presented in a very simple form by sources of funding.  In particular, the Secretariat was 
requested to include a breakdown of the budget by  main areas of activities and objectives pursued. 
This would give more visibility to the relative prio rities of the various activities.  Furthermore, it was 
suggested that the Secretariat could bring out more  clearly in the TA Report and in the Audit Report 
how the recommendations of the previous year's Au dit Report had been followed up on.  Finally, with 
regard to the financial situation in the DDA Globa l Trust Fund (DDAGTF), she indicated that her 
delegation had taken note of the difficulties en countered in 2010 and was well aware of the 
constraints that were being faced in 2011.  Notin g that the European Commission and several of its 
member States had made contributions or firm pledges, she expressed her hope that other Members 
would follow suit. 
137. The representative of Australia said that the TA  Report provided important information on 
the TRTA being carried out by the Secretariat, incl uding in the context of the increased regional focus 
of the WTO's work.  This was useful to Australia in developing and coordina ting its TRTA activities.  
Her delegation commended the Secretariat for the progress made in monitoring and evaluation - including through the introduction of the RBM pro cess, which was in line with the monitoring and 
evaluation framework under the Aid-for-Trade prog ramme. Australia was also pleased to note that 
there was a link being drawn between the Secret ariat's TA work and the upcoming Third Global 
Review of Aid for Trade.  Her delegation looked forward to being updated on the RBM initiative in 
future CTD meetings.  
138. She welcomed the priority that  the ITTC was giving to LDCs. This was consistent with 
Australia's commitment to assisting LDCs, in rec ognition of the particular challenges these countries 
faced in their efforts to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development.  In this context, she WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 28 
 
 
  wished to highlight the particul ar challenges faced by LDCs and small and vulnerable states in the 
Asia-Pacific region.  Australia placed importance in increasing the visibility of these countries in the 
WTO's TA activities and looked forward to further e xploring these issues at the Third Global Review 
of Aid for Trade.  She said that she had take n note of the Secretariat's comments concerning the 
difficulties currently faced in the DDAGTF, and i ndicated that Australia was considering these 
challenges.  Any additional questions or comments by Australia on the two reports that had been 
presented would be shared in due course. 
139. The representative of Canada said that the TA  Report had only recently been received. In 
this light, his delegation would not be able to ma ke a full assessment at the present meeting.  Some 
preliminary remarks would be provided at this stag e, and any further comments would be shared later 
on.  Based on a cursory overview, Canada welcomed  the ITTC's approach to meeting the demands of 
beneficiaries and in tailoring activities for these countries, in particular LDCs. The efforts at 
coordination with other agencies through GTAD were  also welcome, as this would avoid overlap. 
Further efforts in that regard were encouraged.  He noted that the demand-driven nature of TA 
provision was in keeping with the Paris Declar ation on Aid Effectiveness, and commended the ITTC 
on this.  Also in keeping with the Paris Declarati on, he welcomed the adoption of RBM by the ITTC, 
as stated in the first paragraph of both reports that  had been presented.  He noted, however, that the 
reports focused heavily on outputs rather than on out comes, and expressed his hope that future reports 
would incorporate more outcomes and impacts in their assessments.  Comments from other 
delegations under the present agenda item also seemed to  point in the same direction.  His delegation 
looked forward to working closely with the ITTC on these issues, including on the elaboration of a programme-wide log frame against wh ich progress could be measured. 
140. The representative of China said that his dele gation had not yet thoroughly reviewed the two 
reports, and may come back with comments at a later stage.  He indicated his appreciation to the 
ITTC for the high quality of its work.  Pointing to recent discussions in the Committee on Budget, 
Finance and Administration, and to paragraph 165 of the TA Report, he expressed concern over the 
insufficient funds that were being made availabl e for TA activities.  He hoped that the financial 
situation would improve soon, so that the Secretar iat's work in providing TA to developing country 
Members could be facilitated.  Finally, he said th at an important way of considering the long-term 
impact of TA was in terms of the enhanced capacity  of developing country Members to participate in 
the WTO's work, which was a reflection of the success of the ITTC's initiatives. 
141. The representative of Cuba said that her delega tion had not yet had time to carefully study 
the two reports.  She, however, wished to express her appreciation to the ITTC for the open dialogue 
that had always been maintained with her delega tion.  Cuba was one of the beneficiaries of the 
high-quality services provided by the ITTC, and hope d that the fruitful relationship with the ITTC 
would continue. 
142. The representative of Egypt expressed apprecia tion for the work undertaken by the ITTC, 
and in particular the desk dealing with the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. His 
delegation commended the efforts made with respect  to progressive learning and the move towards 
RBM. Referring to the TA Report, he said that paragraph 108 mentioned that, due to human and 
financial resource constraints, the Secretariat had not  been able to organize a full-fledged three-month 
Regional Trade Policy Course (RTPC) for Arab countries as it had done for the other regions.  The 
report also indicated that a one-month Short Trade Policy Course (STPC), organized in collaboration with the Arab Monetary Fund (AMF), had been sche duled to be held in 2010. However, the activity 
had been cancelled due to the in sufficient number of nominations.  He emphasized the importance 
Egypt attached to the three-month RTPCs.  He al so expressed his hope that in the Secretariat's new 
TA Plan due note would be taken of the fact that  the MENA region had not been a beneficiary of an 
RTPC in 2010, while other regions ha d benefitted from such a course.  In particular, he hoped that at 
least one of the three-month RTPCs could be held in the MENA region in 2012.  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 29 
 
 
  143. With respect to the low number of nominations  that the TA Report had made reference to, 
he said that one of the difficulties that Egypt f aced was that the notices convening these courses were 
dispatched at a time that coincided with nationa l religious holidays and recess periods.  Many MENA 
countries were, therefore, not in a position to name their candidates by the prescribed deadlines.  In 
this light, he suggested that ample time be given for Members to screen and name their candidates for 
these courses.  He also noted that, according to th e feedback received, the recent one-month course 
held in Abu Dhabi had been very successful.  This  proved that there was sufficient participation and 
demand, as well absorption cap acity for such activities. 
144. The Director of the ITTC thanked Members for their comments and for their support for the 
ITTC's activities.  He observed that RBM was one of the main issues that had been raised.  In this 
regard, he informed the Committee that several senior officials in the Secretariat were being trained in 
RBM, so as to ensure that they would implement RBM  in assessing their activities.  He also noted the 
importance of ensuring that TA activities were demand- driven.  On this point, he said that a lot of 
efforts had been made by the ITTC, including thro ugh the use of TPRs.  He additionally expressed 
appreciation for the suggestion by the EU that Secretariat staff could interact with donor 
representatives when on mission.  
145. With regard to the WTO reference centres, he  said that the ITTC had started revamping the 
centres, particularly in LDCs.  Members would prob ably be briefed in 2012 on the progress made in 
this regard.  The ITTC's enhanced cooperation w ith regional institutions was another important 
development.  He pointed Members to the new ITTC newsletter, which contained positive comments 
by the senior managers of some of the major regi onal institutions that the ITTC was working with.  
He noted that some of the institutions were cont ributing financial resources to implement activities 
jointly with the WTO.  As a result of the collabora tion with the WTO, many regional institutions were 
giving more priority to trade.  He believed th at the ITTC should continue to strengthen its 
collaboration with regional institutions.  
146. Turning to the comments made by Egypt, he said that the ITTC was working to enhance its 
cooperation with the Arab countries, and was trying to ensure that all scheduled activities for the 
MENA region would be implemented in 2011.  In te rms of deadlines, he said that all regions were 
given the same six-week period to submit nominations.  He also noted that there were less national 
requests from the MENA region than from other regions.  This was part of the explanation for the low 
level of implementation of activities in this region.  
147. He next addressed the points that had been raised on the WTO Chairs Programme. He said 
that an internal evaluation of this programme ha d been undertaken in 2010.  The outcome of this 
evaluation, which had been extremely positive, had been discussed with Members.  At the end of 
2011, the ITTC was planning to commission an i ndependent and external evaluation of the 
programme, the results of which would certainly be shared with Members.  Also on the subject of 
cooperation with the academic world, he said that in June 2012 the WTO - in collaboration with 
UNCTAD and the ITC - would be hosting the annual Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) conference.  He added that the ITTC was committe d to facilitating and encouraging the participation 
of developing country scholars and researchers in its  activities. Finally, he expressed his hope that the 
current financial difficulties would be resolved soon.  As Members already knew from discussions 
with the ITTC, the TA Plan for 2012 and 2013 had been  revised in order to take into account the 
budgetary issues that several Members were facing at the present time.  
148. The Head of the TCAU thanked Members for their comments, which encouraged the TCAU 
to continue working in the same direction.  He said that he wished to make a point on the EU's request 
to better reflect how the recommendations made by the TCAU in the previous year had been 
incorporated in the implementation of activities.  He explained in particular that the current approach 
was different than in the past.  A big improveme nt had been found for a number of years in the WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 30 
 
 
  incorporation of the TCAU's recommendations, but  the margin for improvement was inevitably 
getting smaller.  If the TCAU continued to annua lly review the recommendations, a significant 
difference was not going to be found.  In the current  approach, what was being done for the first time 
was to follow up on the recommendations in the BTORs.   A series of interviews would be held with 
TA providers to explore how the recommendations coul d be implemented.  The results of the exercise 
would be reported in the Audit Report for 2011.  
149. The Chairman said that Members could provide  any further comments on the two reports 
directly to the Secretariat.  
150. The Committee took note of the two reports and of all interventions.  
I. OTHER BUSINESS  
151. No matter was raised under "Other Business". 
152. The meeting was adjourned.  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 31 
 
 
  ANNEX 
Intervention by Egypt at the Eighty-First S ession of the Committee on Trade and Development 
(31 March 2011)1 
 
 
1. The representative of Egypt noted that the Chai rman had indicated that the three sub-items 
under consideration appeared on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of China, Egypt and 
India.  In this regard, he said that he wished to  clarify that the sub-item concerning the GCC Customs 
Union notification had initially appeared on the CTD's agenda at the 73rd Session at the request of the 
United States.  The other two sub-items had appeared  when the RTAs to which they related had been 
notified under the Enabling Clause.  The understanding of China, Egypt and India was that the three sub-items did not appear on the CTD's agenda at their request. 
2. He went on to say that the notification of th e GCC Customs Union had been discussed in the 
CTD under the agenda item "Notifications  under the Enabling Clause" since the 73
rd Session held in 
March 2009.  This sub-agenda item was introduced at the request of a developed Member to challenge 
the legality of invoking the Enabling Clause in  notifying the GCC Customs Union.  Some 
developed-country Members did not favour moving fo rward with the process of consideration of the 
GCC Customs Union until further clarification w as sought on the legal justification for such a 
notification.  This came despite the asserti on made by the former CTD Chairman at the 69th Session 
that the GCC Customs Union was scheduled for a factual consideration at a Dedicated Session of the 
CTD in October 2008.  However pursuant consulta tions held between the challenging developed 
Members and the GCC prompted the latter to make a subsequent notification under Article XXIV of 
GATT.  This was deemed by some developed Memb ers to be the legal premise for examining this 
RTA in the CRTA, completely ignoring the fact that there was a legal and valid notification pertaining 
to this RTA made under the Enabling Clause, and that  this RTA was scheduled for consideration in a 
Dedicated Session of the CTD. 
3. Such undertakings raised several specific and systemic concerns to developing countries.  
These undertakings had prompted China, India and Egypt to address some of their concerns in a 
submission which was introduced and presented in detail at the 80th Session of the CTD held on 
4 October 2010.  The proponents of the submission had argued that several issues needed to be 
discussed and resolved in the CTD before a determ ination could be made on how to consider RTAs 
with a dual notification status.  The ambit of the specific and systemic concerns went well beyond the 
domain of the NGR, which was merely reviewing the TM for RTAs.  
4. He went on to list a number of points which he said were among the main concerns and 
questions that needed to be addressed with respect to the consideration of the GCC Agreement.  He 
firstly inquired whether there was any legal un derstanding to substantiate the views of some 
developed Members that the Enabling Clause did not  provide legal coverage for the GCC Customs 
Union notification or any other custom union.  If this  was the case, he asked for clarification for the 
basis on which Members had approved several othe r customs unions between developing countries 
that had been notified to the CTD under the Enabling Clause.  He cited a number of customs unions in 
this regard, including the Andean Community, the East African Community, the Economic and 
Monetary Community of Central Africa and th e West African Economic and Monetary Union. 
5. He further inquired on the extent to which Memb ers aligned themselves with the Secretariat’s 
Legal Note of 2003 which argued that, even if GATT Article XXIV was not explicitly set aside in the 
first paragraph of the Enabling Clause - whereas Article I explicitly was - invoking the Enabling 
Clause would suffice to authorize RTAs among devel oping and least-developed Members, even if the 
                                                      
1 As found in the Note on the meeting (WT/COMTD/M/81), under agenda item C. WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 32 
 
 
  requirements of Article XXIV were not completely  satisfied. If Members did not agree with the 
Secretariat’s legal opinion, he wished to know  why some developed Members had based their 
arguments on the Legal Note to justify their proposal s on how to deal with dual notifications in the 
NGR.  
6. He also asked why Members had not challe nged the legality of the Unified Economic 
Agreement that established the GCC Customs Union,  which was notified in 1984 exclusively on the 
basis of the Enabling Clause.  He pointed out that Members had agreed at the time to consider that 
Agreement in the CTD within th e realm of preferential arrangeme nts among developing countries.  
He additionally indicated that if the Agreemen t establishing the GCC Customs Union was already 
notified under the Enabling Clause in 1984, it seem ed that the 1995 General Council decision on 
avoidance of procedural and institutional duplication needed be applied in th is case.  Furthermore, 
pointing to the 2007 and 2009 notifications of the GCC Agreement as subsequent notifications regarding implementation procedures, he suggested that these notifications should be treated as such 
in the context of the RTAs TM. 
7. He additionally referred to the procedures on reporting on RTAs adopted by the CTD in 1998 
and contained in document WT/COMTD/16.  According to these procedures, any information subsequent to an initial notifica tion made under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause regarding the 
modification of the preferential a rrangements between developing c ountries was to be notified under 
paragraph 4(a) of the Enabling Clause.  In this li ght, he inquired on the extent to which Members had 
adhered to these procedures in the case of the GCC Customs Union.  He also asked whether it would 
be legal to obtain accession commitments in violati on of existing WTO provisions.  It appeared that 
one member country of the GCC had in 2007 not ified the implementation procedures for the GCC 
Customs Union under the Enabling Clause and subsequently in 2009 had notified the same implementation procedures on the basis of Article  XXIV of GATT.  Furthermore, in 1984 another 
GCC member country had notified the GCC Econom ic Agreement, which established the customs 
union itself, under the Enabling Clause.  On this ba sis, he asked how such unilateral actions would 
affect the rights and obligations of Members.  In addition, he inquired on the legal implications of 
having an agreement establishing a customs union notified under the Enabling Clause, while another 
notification regarding an amendment to that ag reement was notified under both GATT Article XXIV 
and the Enabling Clause.  
8. He continued with his list of issues by inquiring on the extent to which Member's accession 
commitments to notify an RTA on the basis of Article XXIV had precedence over, or denied the other Members party to the same RTA, the right to no tify the Agreement to the CTD under the Enabling 
Clause.  He additionally queried whether the CTD had fulfilled its mandate in considering the GCC 
Agreement, in so far as the Committee's terms of reference required it to consider any questions 
which may arise with regard to either the application or the use of special provisions in favour of 
developing country Members, including the invocation of the Enabling Clause.  He also shared his concern as to whether the CTD had reported the impasse on the interpretation and scope of the 
Enabling Clause, as well as other specific and systemic issues arising from the GCC dual notification, to the General Council for appropriate action, as pe r rule 33 of the Committee's rules of procedure. 
9. He next queried whether Member s had agreed to set a practice whereby notifications of RTAs 
among developing countries were to be contested at  first sight or on a prima facie basis, without 
having any factual report prepared by the Secretariat to  substantiate such challenges.  In this light, he 
asked whether Members would be in  a position to accept a similar practice in the case of RTAs that 
were notified to the CRTA under GATT Article XXIV, given that both the CRTA and the CTD 
followed the same reporting procedures on RTAs, and despite the fact that such actions were not 
prescribed by the RTAs TM.  Moreover, he wished to know whether Members were now in a position 
to revert to the practice of making legal judgmen ts on the compatibility or conformity of RTAs 
notified to the WTO under GATT Article XXIV.  He ob served that this would prove to be interesting  WT/COMTD/M/82 
 Page 33 
 
 
  since, according to the Secretariat, the only RTA no tified on the basis of Article XXIV that was ever 
deemed to be fully WTO-compatible was the Czec h-Slovak Customs Union.  This suggested that 
neither the North American Free Trade Agreement nor  the Treaty of Rome establishing the European 
Economic Community had ever been decreed as bein g compatible with Article XXIV, given that the 
commissioned working party could not, upon scrutiny, reconcile the legal issues. 
10. He additionally asked whether Members would s ubscribe to the view that the Enabling Clause 
was neither a waiver nor an exception to the MF N obligation, but rather  constituted a self-standing 
and designated regime.  Furthermore, if Members ha d the right to challenge the legality of an RTA 
that had been notified under the Enabling Clause, he  questioned the extent to which Members in doing 
so were respecting their previous ad referendum commitment - as prescribed in Annex C of the draft 
Cancun Ministerial declaration - to guarantee that  the Enabling Clause would apply whenever action 
was taken by developing Members under the provisions of this Clause.  He also queried whether RTA 
transparency obligations were distinct from any ac tion that affected Members might wish to take in 
other WTO bodies.  If not, he asked how Members qualified and interpreted the provisions in the 
RTAs TM which stated that RTA factual presentati ons and the consideration of RTAs should not be 
used as a basis for dispute settlement procedures. 
11. He continued with the following points. He firstly inquired how Members interpreted the 
obligation not to prejudge the substance of a require d RTA notification and not to affect the Members 
rights and obligations under the WTO agreements in any way, as was specified in the RTAs TM.  He 
pointed to Section C of the RTAs TM in particul ar, which stated that upon notification and without 
prejudging the substance under which an RTA had been  notified, that RTA would be considered by 
Members on the basis of a factual presentation.  Fu rthermore, he asked what was of most importance 
for the RTA transparency exercise, in particular whether it was the ve nue of consideration or rather 
the relevant applicable WTO law that had been inv oked to justify the creation of the RTA.  It seemed 
from the reaction of some developed Members in th eir consideration of the GCC Customs Union, and 
from a number of panel and appellate body rulings - including the Turkey-Textiles  case and the 
EC-Bananas  dispute - that the applicable WTO legal provision was the core issue here.  
12. Finally, he raised the question of whether the CRTA could review any notification 
automatically and unilaterally.  In this regard, he said that, according to the CRTA's terms of 
reference, it could not do so.  In particular, the CRTA could only carry out an examination of 
agreements in accordance with the procedures and terms of reference adopted by the Council for 
Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in Services or the CTD, as the case may be, and thereafter 
report to the relevant body for a ppropriate action.  Moreover, there were no prescribed provisions in 
the RTAs TM that would allow the CRTA to proceed  with the examination of an RTA that had been 
notified twice, each time invoking a distinct WTO legal provision.  
13. He went on to say that these were some of the specific and systemic issu es that needed to be 
addressed in considering the GCC Customs Union.  He  emphasized that, according to the Secretariat’s 
Legal Note of 2003, any review of the RTA – wher ever it occurred – must be performed according to 
the legal provision that had been invoked to justif y the WTO consistency of the RTA in question.  The 
Note went on to ascertain that any review of an RTA notified under the Enabling Clause must be 
carried out in accordance with the terms of refe rence of the CTD, and that the CTD had overall 
responsibility for the operation of the Enabling Cl ause.  The legal obligations arising from the 
application of the Enabling Clause were very  much different from those prescribed by GATT 
Article XXIV, and this was why hi s delegation had called for prudence in addressing the specific and 
systemic issues at hand.  Merely addressing the issu e of "venue for consideration" was clearly a legal 
and procedural understatement.  
14. He said that he wished to conclude by quoting the Appellate Body's ruling in the EC–Tariff 
Preferences  case, which ascertained that the Enabling Clau se had become an integral part of the WT/COMTD/M/82 
Page 34 
 
 
  GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body also noted that the relationship between trade and development, 
and in particular the role of th e Enabling Clause, remained prominen t on the agenda of the WTO.  The 
Enabling Clause, by its own terms, sought to promot e the fuller participation of developing countries 
in the world trading system.  The EU even argue d that the Enabling Clause was the most concrete, 
comprehensive and important application of the pr inciple of special and differential treatment, and 
that it was the most basic principle of the in ternational law of deve lopment and constituted 
lex specialis  that applied to the exclusion of more general WTO rules.  
15. It was, therefore, arguable that customs uni ons among developing countries should continue 
to be notified on the basis of the Enabling Clause.   The object and purpose of the Enabling Clause 
clearly distinguished it from other exceptions such  as those found in Articles XXIV, XX and XXI of 
the GATT 1994, allowing developed and least deve loped Members to adopt and pursue legitimate 
policy objectives.  For these reasons, Egypt requested  that the dual notification of the GCC Customs 
Union be retained on the agenda for the considera tion of the CTD on the basis of the Enabling Clause, 
and in light of the aforementioned specific and system ic issues that had been raised in its connection. 
He indicated that a discussion on these issues had not yet properly begun. 
__________