The next step in looking at how to revive the mandated review of special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions at the WTO's Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) was taken on 5 May, when General Council (GC) Chair Perez del Castillo (Uruguay) circulated a categorised list of agreement-specific proposals. As previously reported (see BRIDGES Weekly, 3 March 2003), these proposals were broken down into three categories -- basket one for agreement at/before the Cancun Ministerial Conference (10-14 September 2003), basket two for those to be "addressed" in relevant WTO bodies, and basket three for which "wide divergences of views" existed among Members (to view to proposals see http://www.ictsd.org/issarea/development/resources/Latest-SDT-proposals.pdf). While most Members have had positive initial responses to the process, developing countries have generally emphasised that it still remains to be seen how things develop.

Initial reactions

One developed country delegate following the negotiations indicated that the Quad would be looking to "put their best foot forward" in the new process, but that they still felt the approach could have been handled more effectively from the outset (i.e. looking at the broader issues before getting down to the specific proposals). For their part, a number of developing country sources expressed positive views about the rejuvenation of the process, but insisted that the real developmental impact could only be known once the process was at a later stage. One African delegate noted that while the proposal was essentially a "stop-gap measure to get things back on track," there was indeed some basis for collaboration. A few developing countries expressed concern however, over the "side-stepping" of the most recent CTD report (TN/CTD/7, available at http://docsonline.wto.org), which requested the General Council to clarify the mandate on S&D (see BRIDGES Weekly, 13 February 2003).

The process forward

On the process, Chair Perez del Castillo reportedly indicated to developing countries that the request for clarification of the mandate on S&D from the General Council was unlikely to lead anywhere productive, and that it would best be forgotten and attention focussed on making progress on the agreement-specific proposals. He reportedly emphasised that the focus would be on the agreement-specific proposals, as opposed to the cross-cutting ones (including the Monitoring Mechanism), which developed countries had pushed to have dealt with concurrently.

In reference to developing country fears that proposals in category II would go the way of implementation issues (i.e. their belief that they would become lost in the onerous work programmes of the various bodies and see little movement), he pointed out that developed countries had given up some of their rigidities surrounding the possible outcome of the exercise. He noted specifically the assurances he had been given by developed countries that they might be prepared to look at changes in the existing balance of rights and obligations and/or possible amendments to existing WTO texts. This latter point was a major stumbling block in the discussions held during late 2002 and early 2003, as developed countries had been adamant that no mandate existed under which the balance of rights and obligations could be altered (see BRIDGES Weekly, 13 February 2003, link above).

GC Chair Perez del Castillo also reiterated in a recent meeting with some developing country delegations that he would personally oversee the process at the level of the General Council on categories I & III, and supervise category II discussions. He has reportedly set 15 June as the timeframe for the first assessment of the consultations on these matters. On the question of the role for the CTD Special Session Chair Ransford Smith (Jamaica), the answer was not yet clear, but one trade source speculated that Chair Smith would assist the GC Chair in his consultations.

The three categories of proposals

The proposals circulated by Chair Perez del Castillo group 38 agreement- specific proposals into category one, augmenting the 12 agreed on 'in principle' at the end of 2002 with 26 additional proposals that he feels "there appears to be a greater likelihood of reaching agreement". In a note of 7 April, included in the circulation of the proposal, Ambassador Perez del Castillo noted that these additional 26 represented proposals that "have a developmental value that in [his] judgement makes it necessary that [Members] try to address them and make progress, whether in their current form or otherwise". The second category, comprising another 38 proposals, would be considered as soon as possible in the relevant WTO bodies, which would report back to the General Council just prior to the Cancun Ministerial. Possible recommendations from these discussions could be included in an early harvest -- which in essence could potentially add to the proposals to be agreed upon by the time of the Ministerial. Category three, the 15 proposals on which delegates have had most difficulty in finding consensus, would be examined as to how they might be redrafted in a way more suitable to agreement, while preserving the concepts they embody.

At time of press, no further information could be ascertained on the schedule of future consultations.

ICTSD reporting.

.