CTD Special Session Still Stuck On Whether It's A Negotiating Forum

 An informal gathering of the special session of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) was convened on 27 May in an attempt to move forward the ongoing debate of whether the body is in fact a negotiating forum or not. One of the specific items discussed at this informal meeting was the issue of document symbol usage, stemming from an expression of concern by certain developed countries at the 16 May session over the use of 'TN' (i.e. Trade Negotiations) for the document symbol in the body's proposals and documents (see BRIDGES Weekly, 22 May 2002). These countries, primarily the EC, cite the fact that such symbol usage may prejudge the outcome of the debate as to whether the body is a negotiating group reporting to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) or a discussion forum reporting to the General Council (GC) (see upcoming BRIDGES Monthly, Vol. 6 No. 4). The former interpretation carries the impact of putting the work of the body -- the review of special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions in the WTO agreements -- under the single undertaking. This would mean that negotiations in this area would have to be completed, along with all other mandated Doha negotiations, by 1 January 2005. As a possible temporary solution, the EC indicated it would be amenable to a dual coding system using both TN and GC (i.e. TN/CTD & GC/CTD). No other proposals were put forward on the issue. While neither issue was resolved, countries did agree to continue with the planned agenda of reviewing the S&D provisions on an agreement-by-agreement basis at the upcoming 10 June informal and 16 June formal sessions (see link above). These broader issue will be dealt with in July, where the body has two formal sessions scheduled (2 and 17 July), after which Chair Ransford Smith of Jamaica is to report to the General Council "with clear recommendations for action".

Sources indicate the Secretariat will continue to release documents under the TN/CTD symbol until a decision is taken instructing it otherwise.

ICTSD Internal Files.

 Informal Discussions On Textiles Yield Little Reward

 On 28 May and again on 4 June, Goods Council Chair Ambassador Supperamaniam held informal discussions with delegates on the implementation-related issues of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). These meetings were part of a series planned by the Chair to attempt to move the debate forward on how to deal with the incomplete bi-annual review of the ATC as well as with paras. 4.4 and 4.5 of the Decision on Implementation. The Implementation paragraphs instruct the Goods Council to make recommendations to the General Council by 31 July on two specific items: (i) proposals on a potential 'most favourable' methodology for calculating textile quota expansion for small suppliers and developing countries; and (ii) the accelerated expansion of quota limits for developing countries (see BRIDGES Weekly, 28 May 2002). While Members did have an opportunity to further elaborate on their positions regarding the quota expansion items at both the 28 May and 4 June 2002 meetings, sources close to the matter indicated that as of yet, absolutely no progress had been made. Canada, the EU and the US remained adamantly opposed to the two proposals, the source continued, while noting that they had complied with the agreementlived. Based on the inability to progress at the last two meetings, Chair Supperamaniam is rumoured to be taking the issue to the Ambassadorial level -- where sources speculate he will try to find the political will for tackling the apparent deadlock.

A further informal session to deal with the incomplete ATC review is expected on 6 June.

The Council for Trade in Goods meets again on 13 June, where the first agenda item is a report from the Chair on implementation-related issues.

ICTSD Internal Files.

 Transparency In Government Procurement Meeting Exposes Wide Gaps Between Members

 On 29 May, the WTO's Working Group on Transparency in Government Procurement held its first formal post-Doha meeting, where Members discussed the first six of twelve items from the Group's agenda, namely definition and scope, procurement methods, information on national legislation and procedures, information on procurement opportunities, tendering and qualification procedures, and time periods. Warning that government procurement was one of the few policy tools available for achieving socio-economic objectives, India, with support from numerous developing countries, attempted to limit the scope of the discussions in this area. They also felt this area should not be open to dispute proceedings. The US, EC and Switzerland on the other hand sought as broad a scope as possible -- with the US adding that greater transparency would not diminish the policy tool functions of procurement. On procurement methods, Australia outlined a widely supported non- prescriptive approach that would leave it up to the discretion of each government to decide what method to use (see WT/WGTGP/W/31, searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org). With respect to information on national legislation and procedures, Brazil noted that its procurement laws and regulations were already available on the Internet but opposed any obligation to notify Members of all tenders or to translate them into the official languages of the WTO. India wanted to confine this to providing information and opposed any review or examination of domestic laws and regulations. Paragraph 26 of the Doha Declaration provides a mandate for negotiations in this area after the Fifth Ministerial, "on the basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, [...] on modalities of negotiations." The Working Group is scheduled to re-convene in October on its last six items.

ICTSD Internal Files.