SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT TALKS STILL BLOCKED
Negotiations on updating WTO rules that accord ’special and differential treatment’ (S&DT) to developing countries remain deadlocked, mirroring the Doha Round talks overall.
Members are mandated to make S&DT provisions "more precise, effective, and operational." Several developing countries have complained that existing S&DT rules, consisting largely of extended implementation periods and technical assistance, are neither mandatory nor enforceable. They argue that deepening them to explicitly grant poor countries more freedom to pursue developmental policies would make S&DT more effective at actually promoting development.
Delegates did not look at how to bridge their differences on proposals to alter S&DT provisions in certain WTO agreements at a 28 September meeting of the ’special session’ of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD-SS). The gathering served primarily to welcome the new chair of the committee, Ambassador Thawatchai Sophastienphong (Thailand), who succeeded Singaporean Ambassador Burhan Gafoor.
For the benefit of the new chair, some negotiators outlined their countries’ views on revised versions of a set of seven proposed changes to WTO rules.
One of the proposals called for implementing GATT Article XVIII, which in theory allows developing countries to derogate from standard obligations in order to promote industrial development and control balance of payment problems. Specifically, the proposal states that "developed and least-developed country Members shall not be expected… to undertake measure that would undermine the attainment of these goals."
Proposed changes to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures included the introduction of clearer support for giving developing countries, based on their means and needs, time-limited exceptions from having to implement obligations, coupled with mandatory technical assistance upon request.
Another proposal sought to soften developing countries’ obligation to provide data for import licensing purposes, if doing so would involve burdensome financial or administrative costs.
Sources report that Uganda and Lesotho stressed the importance of the GATT Article XVIII proposal for the African Group. Nevertheless, the traditional fault lines remain apparent, with developed countries suggesting that the proposals would substantially alter Members’ rights and obligations arising from the WTO agreements. Former chair Gafoor said in July that some proposals’ supporters thought they had already been watered down too much.
The new chair urged Members to find compromise language, and announced that he would consult with them informally in an attempt to bridge differences.
ICTSD reporting.