|
Contents
> Director-General’s letter to journalists
> The Doha Development Agenda
> Agriculture
> Cotton
> Services
> Market access, non-agricultural products
> Intellectual property (TRIPS)
> Trade facilitation
> Rules: ad, scm including fisheries subsidies
> Rules: regional agreements
> Dispute settlement
> Trade and environment
> Small economies
> Trade, debt and finance
> Trade and technology transfer
> Technical cooperation
> Least-developed countries
> Special and differential treatment
> Implementation issues
> Electronic commerce
> Members and accessions
> Members
> Bananas
> Statistics, Textiles and Clothing
> Statistics, Facts and Figures
> Jargon buster, Country groupings
> Jargon buster, An informal guide to ‘WTOspeak’
|
These are “special and differential treatment
provisions ” (abbreviated as S&D or SDT). The special provisions include:
- longer time periods for implementing agreements
and commitments
- measures to increase trading opportunities for
these countries
- provisions requiring all WTO members to safeguard
the trade interests of developing countries
- support to help developing
countries build the infrastructure to undertake WTO work, handle
disputes, and
implement technical standards
- provisions related to least-developed
country (LDC) members
The Doha mandate back to top
In the Doha Declaration, ministers agreed that
all special and differential treatment provisions should be reviewed,
in order to strengthen them and make them more precise, effective and
operational. The declaration (together with the Decision on Implementation-Related
Issues and Concerns) mandates the Trade and Development Committee to
identify which S&D provisions are mandatory, and to consider the legal
and practical implications of turning those that are currently non-binding
into mandatory obligations. In addition, the committee is to consider
ways in which developing countries, particularly the least developed,
may be helped to make best use of special and differential treatment.
A
total of 88 proposals on special and differential treatment were made
by developing and least-developed countries. Most proposals came from
the African Group and the group of least-developed countries. The proposals
usually identify parts of an agreement and suggest new wording to introduce
new S&D provisions for developing countries or to strengthen existing
ones. They relate to most WTO agreements, including the General Agreement
on Trade in Services (GATS), the GATT and the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
From Doha to
Cancún back to top
The initial deadline – July 2002 – had to be
extended, and by early 2003 members were still unable to agree on the
set of proposals that had been made, nor could they decide whether to
harvest the 12 proposals on which consensus was possible. Many members
called for the Doha mandate — the Ministerial Declaration and the Implementation
Decision — to be clarified.
In February 2003 the General Council instructed
the Committee's Special Sessions to suspend further work. In April
2003, as a result of consultations, the Chairman organized the 88 proposals
in 3 categories:
- category one: 38 proposals on which there appeared
to be a greater likelihood of reaching agreement. The General Council,
in informal meetings, started to work on those proposals.
- category
two: 38 proposals which had been made in areas that were under negotiations
as part of the Doha Development Agenda, or being otherwise considered
in other WTO bodies and which were likely to get a better response
within the framework of the negotiations or at the technical level.
The Chairman
sent the proposals in this group to the concerned bodies and asked
them to address them as part of their on-going work.
- category three: 12
proposals on which members had wide divergences of views. They
were set aside.
By the eve of the Fifth Ministerial
Conference, in September 2003 in Cancún, Mexico, members could agree
on 28 proposals. They remained as “agreed in principle” while work
resumed in the Committee on Trade and Development.
The “July Package” back to top
By early 2004 members were divided on the way
forward. Some wanted to continue to examine proposals. Others wanted
to concentrate on cross-cutting issues such as the establishment of a
monitoring mechanism on the implementation, objectives and principles
of S&D, and the special needs of particular groups of countries. In addition,
members had different views whether or not the 28 proposals agreed in
principle should be adopted.
As part of the overall negotiations, members
approved, on 1 August 2004, a package of framework and other agreements.
The package, known as the “July Package”, set a new deadline: July
2005.
The situation as it stands back to top
Members found it difficult to resume work on
S&D after the 2004 July Package was agreed. There were still important
divergences of view on the way forward. Finally, in early April 2005,
the chairman found a compromise: members would resume work on five LDCs'
proposals. They 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.
Although progress was made on the five proposals,
the Chairman announced on 29 July 2005 that he was unable to make specific
recommendations to the General Council. The situation was the same
at
the time of printing. |
Other material:
> Work on special and differential provisions
> Doha
declaration
> Doha declaration
explained
> Development
|
