WT/COMTD/M/82
Page 1

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 2011[1]

Chairman: H. E. Dr. Anthony Mothae Maruping (Lesotho)

A.adoption of the agenda

B.observers

(i)Request for attendance of ad hoc observers

(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 the Groupe de la Banque Africaine de Developpement

C.report of the 44th session of the joint advisory group on the international trade centre unctad/wto (ITC/AG(XLIV)/238)

D.notifications under the enabling clause

-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 comprehensive economic partnership agreement between india and korea (goods)

-generalized system of preferences - notification by the european union (wt/comtd/n/4/add.5)

-generalized system of preferences - notification by japan (wt/comtd/n/2/add.15)

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)

F.modalities to implement the transparency mechanism for preferential trade arrangements - statement by the chairman

G.review of steps taken to provide duty-free and quota-free market access to least developed countries

H.technical cooperation and training

(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.1)

I.other business

annex

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 Secretariat 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 appear 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 Cooperation Council (GCC) Customs Union notification and the other two dual notifications – which concerned the regional trade 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 requested a discussion of the same paper – the one submitted by China, Egypt and India on "Systemic and specific issues arising out of the dual notification of the Gulf Cooperation Council Customs 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 groups of Members before the 81st 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 holding 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 PTAs. 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 clarification 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 which 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 procedural 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 having 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 consideration within the ambit of the heading "Notifications under the Enabling Clause". Egypt was concerned that such 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 and adopt the agenda for the present meeting, but on the basis of a number of understandings. He noted firstly in this regard that the deliberations taking place under the sub-item pertaining to the GCC 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 consideration had not been resolved. The deliberations under item D had, therefore, not been exhausted. In this regard, he recalled the 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 process 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 related 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 intervention 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 that 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 drop 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 avoided 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 and had been appearing on the CTD's agenda since the 73rd Session.
  8. The representative of China recalled that, at the beginning of the 81st Session of the CTD, his delegation, along with Egypt and India, had raised 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 Chairman 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 - the 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 precedent of having redundant agenda items for the same issue, even upon the request of the same Member. He expressed his support for the requestsmade byEgypt seeking the Chairman's confirmationon the relevant points. His delegation looked forward to engaging in discussions during the informal consultations that the Chairman would be holding.
  9. The representative of the United States thanked the Chairman for having clarified which delegations had requested which agenda items. He believed that this was helpful for Members. With respect to the agenda for the present meeting, his delegation 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 Agreement. Each of these sub-items had fulfilled their purpose of informing Members of the notifications made, and should be removed from the agenda. However, in an effort to facilitate the formal CTD meeting, his delegation had demonstrated flexibility in consultations with the Chairman, despite the substantive concerns. Given that the three sub-items listed under agenda item D were unnecessary, he said that he would only be providing comments under agenda item E, which correctly listed the title of the paper submitted by China, Egypt and India. If some Members called for the 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 agenda 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 delayed. The CTD's annual report for 2010 had also been affected, as some Members could not agree to a factual representation of the Committee's discussions on RTA notifications. The US had worked diligently 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 clear 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 had 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 procedural 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 delegation was also of the view that discussions on the first three sub-items under item D had been exhausted. In this light, he did not see the need to repeat the three sub-items on the agenda for the present 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. However, 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 forward 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 agenda for the present meeting could be adopted.
  14. The representative of India said that his delegation 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 discussions 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 meetings 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 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 "Notifications 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" agenda 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 should continue their discussions. Substantive discussions under this sub-itemhad, in fact, already been held.
  16. He said that the issue at hand was an issue related to a notification. In this regard, he recalled that the US had stated that it did not have 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 what 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 the 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
  1. 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 Cooperation Organization (ECO), the InterArab Investment Guarantee Corporation, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the South Centre, the Pacific Islands Forum, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the West African Economic and Monetary Union(WAEMU) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).