LDCs make strong plea in WTO for action on SDT

The Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development of the WTO met on 27 October to further consider in particular five Least Developed Country Agreement-specific proposals on Special and Differential Treatment, on which no consensus has been reached by Members so far.

Several LDCs made strong statements at the meeting calling for action to be taken on time for the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference to deliver some results.

The mandate of the Committee has been to review all Special and Differential Treatment provisions in WTO agreements with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and operational, and to report to the WTO General Council with clear recommendations for a decision.

The proposals on these provisions had initially been categorized into three distinct informal categories (thematic clusters) but there was a failure to move forward in making concrete recommendations on these proposals to the WTO General Council.

This resulted in the Chair of the Special Session, Ambassador Faizel Ismail of South Africa, to look for a compromise on the way to proceed and concentrate the work on five Least Developed Country proposals.

The five LDC Agreement-specific proposals include greater flexibility for LDCs to take up commitments, consistent with their level of economic development; improved access for LDCs to temporary waivers regarding one or more of their obligations; duty-free and quota-free market access for goods originating from LDCs; and greater flexibility to use trade-related investment measures as a development tool.

At the meeting Thursday, several LDCs made strongly worded statements, including one by Uganda, which the Chair characterized as a "passionate plea for us to take action" on time for the Hong Kong Ministerial to deliver some results.

Uganda made a call for "affirmative action" by Members, and asked rhetorically several times what was the purpose for the LDCs to go to Hong Kong when there seems to be no hope of getting any improved market access for their products.

Uganda expressed regret over the fact that whatever the LDC group had proposed had been rejected, meaning that there would not be "any harvest"
for the LDCs in Hong Kong.

"We will only go there to accompany those having harvest," Uganda pointed out. It added that the message from some other Members seems to be: "stay where you are or die, we don't care".

Uganda asked for an agreement on Special and Differential Treatment that would allow the LDCs to attract investment and increase their participation in world trade, which now stands at only around 0.6%. The alternative is for the LDCs to feel neglected and marginalised, Uganda said.

Rwanda said that "we don't have any gains from this Round", while Lesotho said that "our patience has limits". Bangladesh "implored all Members to support our integration into world trade".

Zambia, speaking on behalf of the LDCs, said that the LDC Group has been in a continuous process of reducing its level of ambition.

In a statement at the meeting, Zambia made some specific comments on the five proposals.

With respect to proposal number 23 (on allowing waivers to be provided to LDCs), Zambia said that the main opposition to this proposal appears to come from some developing countries that are not willing to consider further preferential market access being given to LDCs.

Moreover, Zambia added, replacing the mandatory words "shall" to "should" in this proposal as proposed by some Members would not only further weaken the proposal but would also erode the rights of LDCs contained in Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement.

With regards to proposal number 36 (on providing duty-free and quota-free market access to LDCs), Zambia said that the LDC Group had proposed a number of alternative texts but none of them seem to have come close to satisfying the demands of a select few of the Members.

On proposal number 84 (with respect to the TRIMS Agreement), Zambia said that the LDCs have made major concessions. They had started with a request to be completely excluded from the TRIMS, and had consistently tried to take on board the concerns of other Members. To this end, the LDCs had modified their proposals.

"Despite all of these innovations and adjustments, we seem to be just as far from getting an agreement on Proposal 84 than we were when we were asking for a total exemption from the TRIMS Agreement," Zambia said.

"Given that we are having so much difficulty in reaching consensus on these five proposals, the prospects of being able to reach any kind of agreement on the remaining proposals on Special and Differential Treatment look very bleak indeed," Zambia added.

Zambia said: "quite simply, we do not detect the political will of other Members to strengthen special and differential treatment provisions to make them more precise, effective and operational, as we all agreed to do in Doha".

The EC and the US on the other hand maintained that the situation was not as bad as was characterized by some LDCs, although they said that they understood the LDCs' frustration.

The EC said "we are getting closer to a mutually acceptable agreement", while the US said that there are real prospects for an agreement. The US also recalled that there are provisions already for Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO agreements, given both de facto and explicitly to the LDCs.

Brazil said the LDCs should not bear the burden of keeping the sanctity of the WTO agreements and principles, since flexibilities are used elsewhere.

China said that Hong Kong is important to show that the WTO is concerned about development, while Singapore said there is a need for an outcome in Hong Kong and an agreement on Special and Differential Treatment could be the only one, the way things are.

The Chair reported that Members are very close to an agreement on some of the proposals but there is a need for new wording to get full convergence.

Consultations for the last two weeks have concentrated on two proposals, number 36 (on providing duty-free and quota-free market access to LDCs) and number 84 (on flexibilities with respect to the TRIMS Agreement for LDCs).

The Chair stressed that there is a need for political decisions on both proposals. He also reported on the situation of other proposals discussed in different Committees and Negotiating Groups, on which there appeared to be no better prospects for agreement.