The WTO Committee on Trade and Development's special session (CTD-SS) on special and differential treatment (S&D) met for the second time on 9 April, with the intention of focusing on the identification of S&D provisions that Members consider should be made mandatory, and to consider Members' inputs on the legal and practical implications of making non-mandatory S&D provisions mandatory. In practice however, this meeting, like the previous CTD-SS on 5 March (see BRIDGES Weekly, 5 March 2002), focused primarily on procedural items. One topic that saw discussion was the relationship between a provision being mandatory in nature, and its effectiveness (or more aptly, its potential to still be ineffective despite being mandatory).

CTD-SS tasked with ambitious agenda

One element coming out of Doha, which trade sources noted as being one of the more ambitious elements of the agenda, is the mandate given to the CTD with regards to S&D. Outlined in para. 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(01) DEC/W/1), this negotiating mandate states "[...] all special and differential treatment provisions shall be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational." Further, the Doha mandate endorses para. 12 of the Decision on Implementation (WT/MIN(01)/W/10), which lays out some of the framework and the timeline of the S&D review. Based on para. 12 of the Decision, the CTD must "report to the General Council with clear recommendations for a decision by July 2002."

However, barring one submission from India at the 9 April session (see below), Members will only start looking at the numerous S&D provisions in the WTO agreements at the third session -- scheduled for 16 May 2002. Based on the currently available schedule, this gives Members four more formal meetings to complete the review and come to consensus on a set of recommendations.

Procedure for moving ahead

While sources indicate that the contentious items that came up at the first session were not dealt with further (i.e. whether the CTD-SS is in fact a negotiating body and what would be the method of reporting to the General Council), the Committee did move ahead such that from the third session onwards, they would proceed agreement by agreement, on a 'Member-proposal basis'. Further to that, the Secretariat (under direction of the Chair) will give Members guidance as to which S&D provisions or which Agreements will be the subject of the reviews in the formal sessions.

For the 16 May CTD-SS, Members are to submit their proposals for the following agreements: Agriculture, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), Textiles (ATC), Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), TRIMs (investment measures), Antidumping (Article XI of GATT 94), and the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). The following meeting will see proposals on, inter alia, the GATT 1994, TRIPs (intellectual property rights), the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, and a number of the 'Understandings' of GATT 1994.

One developing country delegate noted that this 'member-proposal', agreement-by-agreement process will be "extremely tedious" and "likely prevent any substantial progress on the items". Based on such a heavy agenda, they said, "it becomes extremely difficult to get into specifics." Furthermore, in light of the crosscutting nature of S&D, the delegate stated a preference for a more systemic approach to the issue -- one more in line with what might live up to the term 'Development Agenda' -- such as the proposed Framework Agreement on S&D (WT/GC/W/442) put forth by a number of developing country Members in the lead-up to the Doha Ministerial (see BRIDGES Monthly, September 2001). Commenting on the overall progress of the S&D issue, the delegate held that while there was a sense that everyone was "talking the same language," there did not appear to be a willingness to translate that into action.

India submits first substantive proposal

India was the first and only country to submit proposed S&D changes at this session (entailing mainly a change of the word 'should' to 'shall'). It proposed two changes to the SPS agreement -- one relating to Article 10.2 (extended timelines for SPS regulation compliance), and the other to Article 10.4 (facilitating the participation of developing country Members in standard setting organisations). As part of the former request to amend Art. 10.2, they further requested an amendment to the Decision on Implementation (para. 3.1) which relates to that SPS article.

Two others elements of the Indian proposal deal with the DSU -- Articles 4.10 (giving developing country Members special attention during consultations) & 21.2 (regarding follow up to implementation of dispute settlement rulings). Another part of the proposal deals with the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, relating to Article 3.5 (special attention to developing country Members' applications for non- automatic import licenses).

One Quad source welcomed the Indian proposal, saying that the paper would require further review before comments could be made available. Another informed source reported that the US took particular issue with the proposal to amend the Decision on Implementation. Further, the US questioned whether the DSU items should be dealt with in the Dispute Settlement Body Special Session rather than the CTD-SS.

Mandatory vs. effective

Many comments were made regarding the difference in nature between making a provision mandatory versus making it effective. Some developing country Members (including Paraguay and China) said that the problem with S&D was more often one of implementation by developed countries rather than one of wording. Others (including Indonesia, Pakistan, Venezuela, St Lucia, Cuba, Egypt) said that making a provision mandatory was not enough, and that it had to be made effective and operational.

Prior to its deadline of July 2002 to "report to the General Council with clear recommendations for a decision by July 2002", the CTD-SS is scheduled to meet on 16 May, 14 June, 2 July, and 17 July.

ICTSD Internal Files.