7 October saw the first formal meeting of the WTO's Committee on Trade and Development (meeting in special sessions) since the extension of the 31 July 2002 deadline on the review of special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions. With a new deadline of reporting "with clear recommendations for decision by 31 December 2002" and a detailed workplan in hand (see BRIDGES Weekly, 25 September 2002), developing country Members were hoping for a significant upturn in the pace of these talks. However, since Members for the most part maintained traditional positions on the same 'core' issues of the debate, sources reported little progress. Due to the meeting running overtime, Chair Ransford Smith (Jamaica) indicated that an additional date would be sought to complete the meeting's agenda.

Some of these core issues include how and where to proceed with the 80-plus agreement-specific proposals already on the table; how, and to what extent, would a monitoring mechanism operate; and broader cross-cutting issues (including, inter alia, what are the principles and objectives of S&D and how, if at all, to differentiate amongst developing countries at different levels of development). The three new proposals officially submitted at this meeting, coming from the EC, Switzerland, and Paraguay respectively, were not discussed independently, but rather in terms of these issues listed above (TN/CTD/W/13, W/14, & W/15 are searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org).

Agreement-specific proposals

One developing country delegate described the general mood as "frustrating", citing his continued belief that some Members simply do not appear willing to move forward on this review -- particularly on the agreement-specific issues, which many developing country delegates view as the only area of the work programme that was in fact mandated for review by Ministers at Doha. He went on to say that most of the discussions on the cluster of agreement-specific proposals scheduled for this meeting were met by responses (by mostly, but not exclusively, developed countries) of being 'impractical', 'overly ambitious', 'altering the balance of rights and obligations', and/or 'still requiring further study'. Rarely, if ever, was an alternative offered, he noted, although some developed countries were quick to point out how much they felt they were doing for the least-developed countries.

Such responses resonated in both the EC and the Swiss submissions, which envisaged the bulk of the agreement-specific proposals being passed on to other "relevant" WTO bodies.

Clustering approach

Members agreed that the post-July work programme would deal with the agreement-specific proposal by clustering them into relevant groups. The three clusters that formed the focus of the 7 October meeting were: 1) provisions aimed at increasing the trade opportunities of developing country Members; 2) provisions under which WTO Members should safeguard the interests of developing country Members; and 3) 'flexibilities of commitments and use of policy instruments. The agreements to be discussed within these clusters included GATT 1994, the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, the TRIMs Agreement, the Agreement on Import-Licensing, and the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries.

With respect to the third cluster of issues -- what one trade expert referred to as 'spaces for development policy' -- developed countries reportedly put forward that sufficient flexibilities were already present in the system. In an exchange with Japan, India noted that they wanted to reach the same level of economic development as Japan by climbing the same 'ladder' they had used, implying that flexibilities in the current rules were needed to enable this to occur. Here the Indian delegate was alluding to the recent book by Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang, entitled "Kicking Away The Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective", where Dr. Chang outlines that many of the 'industrial, trade and technology' instruments used my most OECD countries during their early development periods would not have been allowed were the current WTO rules in place at the time. India continued citing Dr. Chang's work, saying that in the same way as the developed countries, developing countries would also support full integration, but only once they had reached the level of development of Japan or the US.

Monitoring Mechanism

According to trade sources, discussions on the monitoring mechanism proceeded more smoothly, with all Members agreeing that the objective of such a mechanism would be to assess the implementation of S&D provisions by both developed and developing countries. However, some Members reportedly expressed serious concerns regarding a proposal by Switzerland, in that references to the use of 'consultants or other institutions' and the need to increase WTO visits to countries, would imply that the Secretariat, and not Members themselves, would drive the mechanism. This, noted an African delegate, would be "unacceptable."

Principles & objectives of S&D

The heart of the so-called 'cross-cutting issues' lies with the question of what are the principles and objectives of special and differential treatment. On this, most developed countries are adamant that a coherent vision must be agreed upon before reviewing any of the specific S&D provisions. In their view, the principle of S&D is to integrate developing countries into the multilateral trading system, to be done by solving developing country implementation problems, but not at the expense of 'damaging' the entire system in the process.

Developing countries, on the other hand, note that firstly, as a matter of process, Ministers at Doha mandated that "all [S&D] provisions shall be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective, and operational" and not that a discussion on the broader cross-cutting issues must take place prior to such an exercise. Substantively, they add that the principles and objectives of S&D are already embodied in Part IV of the GATT, dealing with trade and development, and specifically in Article XXXVI of the GATT, entitled 'Principles and Objectives'. As such, many developing country delegates have voiced their opinion that the move by developed countries to change the mandated work of the body (as per their reading of the Ministers' instructions from Doha), in combination with the varied replies seeking to delay substantive discussions on the specific proposals already made, are merely attempts at putting off any gains in this area for developing countries until gains in other areas of the negotiations of importance to developed countries are more visible.

Other cross-cutting issues

The cross-cutting issues of both whether the WTO should be a single-tiered, two-tiered, or multi-tiered system, and issues related to graduation were not discussed, as the meeting ran overtime. As such, the Chair indicated that a new date would be sought to conclude these agenda items. At time of press, however, a date had not been set.

Two informal meetings of the special session of the CTD are scheduled for 23 October and 13 November respectively; with two formal sessions scheduled for 25 November and 2 or 3 December.

ICTSD reporting.