RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/CTD/M/10
21 January 2003
(03-0303)
Committee on Trade and Development
Tenth Special Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 6 NOVEMBER 2002
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Ransford Smith (Jamaica)
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Chairman said that the draft agenda for the meeting was contained in
airgram WTO/AIR/1945 of 25 October 2002.
2. The agenda was adopted.
B. DISCUSSION OF AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
- Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (TN/CTD/W/2, TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2,
TN/CTD/W/6)
3. The Chairman said that nine proposals addressing the Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) were before the Committee.  Three of the
proposals had been jointly submitted by the delegations of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Egypt,Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mauritius, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Zimbabwe
(document TN/CTD/W/2).  Those proposals addressed paragraph 2 of Article 9 and paragraphs 1 and
3 of Article 10 of the SPS Agreement.  Four of the nine proposals on the SPS Agreement had been
made by the African Group, on Articles 9.2, 10.1, 10.3 and 10.4 of the Agreement (document
TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2).  Two further proposals had been submitted by the delegation of India
(document TN/CTD/W/6), addressing paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 10 of the SPS Agreement.  He
suggested that Members considered all the proposals together.
4. The representative of Canada said that his de legation wished to hear the concerns behind the
proposals made by developing countries with regard to the SPS Agreement.  Knowledge of those
underlying concerns was important to ensure that they were addressed in a more effective way.  The
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Committee) had also had the issue of
special and differential treatment (S&D) and the related issues of technical assistance on its agendafor some years.  It was therefore important to ensure that the discussions in the two committees were
mutually beneficial.  His delegation believed that the existing S&D provisions in the SPS Agreement
had been under-utilised.  Nevertheless, the existing S&D provisions should be made more effective,
user friendly and profitable for developing country Members, rather than developing new provisions.
The S&D provisions were unique and they had to relate to Members ability to regulate specificchallenges encountered in that respect.  His delegation found it impossible to implement all proposals
in the SPS area, as they would imply that Members would not be able to regulate until every
incremental cost in every other Member had been fully addressed by cost free grants.  The SPS
Committee had developed a taxonomy of different types of technical assistance programmes.
However, the generally held view was that the technical assistance that was being provided might nothave been of the right type.  He made reference to a recent workshop at which both Inter AmericanTN/CTD/M/10
Page 2
Institute on cooperation in Agriculture (IICA) and the International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC) had demonstrated that the developing countries prioritised legal and institutional frameworks;
the soft infrastructure over technical scientists and equipment.  Soft infrastructure was not the easiest
kind of technical assistance to provide but Members now knew the type of assistance required and had
to adapt to those requests.  The SPS Committee had developed a questionnaire on technical assistanceissues to which twenty-eight countries had responded.  That questionnaire had not only helped those
Members get technical assistance but had also helped enhance the understanding of technical
assistance issues in the SPS Committee.  He reiterated that his delegation was of the view that the
capacity of the existing SPS provisions had to be exhausted before new obligations could be
considered.  His delegations view on Article 10.1 was similar to that expressed by the Like-Minded
Group.  His Government had proposed that when an importing Member notified a measure and
interested developing countries expressed an interest therein, there would be an obligation for thenotifying Member to consult with developing countries to address their concerns, through technical
assistance or through an alteration to the measure on an MFN basis.  The solution then have to be
notified.  If solutions were notified it would encourage others to apply.  It would also encourage other
importing Members to take similar action.  Such transparency would encourage Members to take full
advantage of existing provisions.
5. The representative of the United States agreed with the representative of Canada that the
application of S&D provisions under the SPS Agr eement was fundamentally different from the way
S&D treatment provisions were applied in other WTO agreements.  Members had constructively been
discussing technical assistance and S&D treatment issues in the SPS Committee when such issues
related to specific Members and specific products.  The issue of SPS had been debated extensively inthe run up to the Doha Ministerial Conference as part  of the implementation debate.  He said although
many of the issues on the agenda of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development
(CTD) overlapped with those earlier discussions, it would not be productive to renew the
implementation debate in the context of the S&D tr eatment discussions.  He recalled that the Doha
Ministerial Declaration covered six points.  Some Members wished the Doha Ministerial Declarationto go beyond those.  However, the balance of the SPS Agreement might then be affected.  His
delegation was willing to work with Members in a partnership between the public and the private
sector to find workable ways to operationalize the S&D treatment provisions in the SPS Agreement.
Effective implementation of the SPS Agreement by all Members would increase access to markets
and improve health protection for developing countries.  He believed that a trade success in one-
product in which there had been specific SPS concerns would build private domestic infrastructure for
the success of additional products.  Information handling and information sharing were key issues.The proposal made by the delegation of Canada was one step in the right direction in that regard.
More targeted work would be necessary to enable SPS inquiry points and notification authorities to
engage effectively in improving the effectiveness of  S&D treatment provisions.  It was important that
developing countries expressed clear interests and clear concerns regarding their trade in particular
products in order to find solutions to trade issues between Members.
6. The representative of the European Communities said that the lack of movement on SPS-
related matters was due to the complexity of the subject-matter.  Some of the proposals seemed
unfeasible as they did not only depend on the good will of Members, but related to standards applied
for health protection and other similar reasons.  That was particularly true for the discussion relating
to Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  It was also true,  but in a different way, for the proposals onArticle 9.2 which would condemn Members to withdr awing measures.  Nevertheless, his delegation
realised the reason why those proposals had been made as SPS measures could and did act as barriers
to trade.  His delegation therefore took the underl ying concerns seriously.  Funding was being made
available by International Trade Centre (ITC) and bilateral donors like the European Communities
and its Member states for SPS-related technical assistance in order to integrate countries, particularlydeveloping countries, into the multilateral trading system.  He said that the further work on
equivalence that was underway in the SPS Committee represented an important part of futureTN/CTD/M/10
Page 3
implementation of SPS concepts.  His delegation believed that it might be possible, in the near future,
to develop a set of illustrative guidelines on eq uivalence agreements as a tool to inform WTO
Members about key-parameters and elements that had to be taken into account when considering on
such agreements.  That would go beyond proposals on transparency and mutual knowledge and would
be a sign of positive engagement on the issues of equivalence.
7. The representative of Argentina said that his delegation was interested in ensuring that
developing countries could benefit from technical assistance in the context of the SPS Agreement.  He
proposed that Members take into consideration the actual needs that developing countries had in
relation to technical assistance.  His delegation could not identify a precise link between the
discussion on S&D treatment in the Special Session of the CTD and the mandate given by Ministers
at the Doha Ministerial Conference.  He appreciated the comments made by the representative of the
European Communities concerning the question of equivalence as that could help exportingdeveloping countries to solve some of the problems they faced.
8. The representative of Egypt said that the proposal made by the representative of Canada to
operationalize Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement was a valuable contribution.  However, he did not
believe that that proposal addressed the requirement captured in the proposal by the Like-Minded
Group, which was to secure and enhance current levels of exports from developing and least-developed countries (LDCs).  His delegation agreed with the proposal made by the representative of
Canada that enhancing the transparency of Article 10.1 could be beneficial although many other
concerns also had to be addressed.  The representative of the United States had questioned whether
the current balance of the SPS Agreement would be maintained if the proposed amendments or
adjustments were made, and had also stated that the current S&D provisions had not been utilised.Although he agreed with most of those arguments, there was a need to amend and adjust the
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  It was the vague language of the articles of the SPS Agreement
which was responsible for under their utilisation.  The proposed amendments to the language of those
articles were made in order to make them more user-friendly and responsive to the needs of
developing countries.  He clarified that the proposal s did not relate to new rules or new provisions, but
rather to amendments to the existing provisions.
9. The representative of Australia said that strengthened S&D treatment provided by developed
country Members under the SPS Agreement was more likely to take the form of commitments to
provide technical assistance under Article 9 than  mandatory provisions under Article 10.  She said
that that was due to the direct link between the ability of Members to operate quarantine regulatory
regimes and the workability of proposals that had been put forward under Article 10.  Her delegation
considered it more practical and more trade-focused to consider Article 9.  The SPS measures takenby Members were determined on a case-by-case basis and would vary according to the likelihood of
pest and disease entry under scientific examination and the appropriate level of protection of the
importing country.  It was difficult to see how mandatory provisions could be made under Article 10
when measures were determined on a case-by-case basis.  Once an importing Member determined its
SPS measure, based on science, the risk was not diminished by virtue of an exporting Member beingdeveloping or developed.  With reference to the proposals to allow for longer time frames for
compliance under Article 10.2, she said that such an extension would depend on the nature of the
measure.  The focus should be on the workability of proposals.  It was important to consider where
the proposals denied the sovereignty of an impor ting country to determine its appropriate level of
protection as established in Article 2.  The proposal that the SPS Committee shall grant exceptionsunder Article 10.3 provided for an automaticity that denied Members the right set out under Article 2
of the SPS Agreement, especially when that right was countered with the right set out in Article 5.6,
that the measure be applied in the least trade restrictive manner.  She referred to the proposal made by
the delegation of India in document TN/CTD/W/6, that the "should" in Article 10.4 should be read as
a duty rather than an exhortation to encourage developing country participation in internationalTN/CTD/M/10
Page 4
organisations.  That was something which was practicable and deliverable and her delegation would
be making some contributions in that regard.
10. The representative of Pakistan said that the issues discussed had been on the table since
before the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  The two main questions related to discussions that had
arisen from the underlying concerns that developing countries had with respect to their lack ofinfrastructure and lack of the financial and technical capabilities necessary to live up to some SPS
requirements.  That would lead to trade losses on the one hand and consumer health on the other.
Both concerns were justified.  What his delegation was seeking was a commitment by developed
countries to provide technical assistance to build infrastructure.  The proposal on Article 10.1
suggested consultations among exporting devel oping country Members and importing developed
country Members to secure and enhance the current levels of exports from developing countries, to
maintain market shares, and to build infrastructure capabilities.  Developing countries were not askingother Members to surrender their right to impose SPS, but that they assist developing countries
Members to acquire the infrastructure capabilities they needed to comply with the SPS requirements
developed countries imposed.  He said that the word "consider" in the phrase "call to consider" in
Article 9.1 of SPS Agreement, did not contain any reference to a  precise length of time.  For
example, mango exporters in Pakistan had been prevented from exporting to a particular market forthe last five years.  Citrus exporters had been hit by rules in another major market for the last three
years and the Government of Pakistan was still requesting technical assistance to resolve the problem.
Two-thirds of the Doha Ministerial Declaration related to technical cooperation.  SPS was an area
where developing countries really needed technical assistance.
11. The representative of Switzerland said that SPS measures were intended to protect consumer
and animal health.  That concern prevailed over any other trade concern.  She said that her
Government aimed to implement the SPS Agreement in a way that would minimise its impact on
international trade while still maintaining the desired health protection level.  SPS measures were
normally based on international norms.  Her delegation did therefore not see how it would be possible
to reconcile the desired health protection level with  any obligation to maintain a certain market share.
Such a system was actually contrary to the basic idea of the multilateral trading system which was a
system based on market rules.  She said that her delegation also recognised that the transfer of
technology had to be encouraged in order to achieve development of the technologies necessary to
guarantee the application of SPS measures.  That should be a collective task of development co-
operation.  Her Government was prepared to act in that direction, however there should be no legal
requirement to attain a certain result.  With reference to the proposals regarding Article 10.2 of the
Agreement, she said that that had been intensely negotiated during the preparations for the DohaMinisterial Conference and constituted a negotiated outcome.  It would therefore be difficult to find
another balance.  Developing countries could face problems in implementing SPS measures and
action to assist developing countries would sometimes be necessary.  However the approach to define
the problems and identify the solutions should be pragmatic and should not jeopardise the right of
Members to protect the health of people and animals.
12. The representative of India said that developing countries had made a number of proposals in
the periods leading up to the Seattle and the Doha Ministerial Conferences.  Those proposals had lead
to the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns.  At the Doha Ministerial Conference
Ministers had also given a clear mandate to review all S&D provisions with the view to strengthening
them and making them more precise, effective and operational.  He emphasised that that mandateshould be kept in mind when discussing the proposals tabled.  His delegation recognised the right of
Members to apply SPS measures to protect human, animal and plant health.  Such SPS measures
should, at the same time, not be applied in a manner which would constitute disguised restrictions on
international trade.  He agreed with the representatives of Pakistan and Egypt that the intention of the
proposals made was not to change the balance of rights and obligations contained in the SPSAgreement.  He referred to his delegation's proposals on Article 10.2 and said that longer time framesTN/CTD/M/10
Page 5
for compliance should be accorded for developing c ountries in relation to their capabilities to fulfil
new SPS measures when there was scope for phased introduction.  It was difficult to see how that
proposal changed the balance of rights and obligations.  He referred to the proposal made on Article
10.4 relating to the text stating that Members should  encourage and f acilitate the active participation
of developing country Members in the relevant international organisations.  Discussions in the SPSCommittee had resulted in the Director General taking  the initiative to facilitate the participation of
developing countries in international standard setting bodies.  He said that that fact had been
recognised in the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns.  More could be done for
the effective participation of developing country Members in international discussions.  With respect
to Article 9.2 he said that his delegations' proposal sought a clear commitment from major trading
partners, that in case exporting developing country Members faced difficulty in fulfilling the SPS
requirements of an importing Member, the importing Member should provide technical assistance.
13. The representative of Kenya said that Ministers at the Doha Ministerial Conference had
created the Special Session of the CTD to make S&D treatment provisions more meaningful in order
to fully integrate the disadvantaged Members into the multilateral trading system.  Developing
countries did not seek to lower any standards.  They wanted to follow high standards but needed
assistance to do so.  Some Members had already admitted that the technical assistance provided wasinadequate.  The proposals by the African Group requested technical and financial assistance for
African Members to live up to SPS standards.  The proposals were not intended to change the
provisions of the SPS Agreement, but rather to strengthen it through assistance to developing
countries.  If other Members considered those pr oposals unworkable, he asked what they would
consider as workable.
14. The representative of Malaysia said the SPS Agreement specifically recognised the need for
S&D provisions to enable developing country trade partners to comply with specific SPS measures
and to maintain market shares.  There were types of technical assistance that developed Members
should consider to make the SPS Agreement more effective.  Those included the provision of
technical manuals explaining the requirements of new SPS measures, and information on relevanttechnologies to enable developing countries to meet new SPS requirements.  In addition, seminars and
technical missions should be arranged for developing country exporters to better understand new SPS
measures and help meet them new requirements.  Such assistance did not involve any large costs and
would effectively meet part of the developing Members' concerns.  With respect to paragraph 54 of
the African Group proposal regarding the requirement to initiate prior consultations, she said that such
prior consultations would be complementary to the current obligation of providing notifications in the
period designated for comments.  However, her delegation recognised that that might not be possiblefor emergency measures.
15. The representative of Canada said that the suggestions made by the delegation of Malaysia
were reasonable and practical.  The proposal from the Like-Minded Group on Article 10.1 was one
that could be worked on and the SPS Committee was already working on something similar.  He said
that progress had already been made with respect to the proposal made by the delegation of India onArticle 10.4, regarding the participation of developing countries in standard setting bodies.
Nevertheless, the issue might benefit from an additional push forward.  He believed that all Members
seemed to agree on the aim to make S&D provisions effective, meaningful and practical.  Part of the
problem was that no Member had requested for S&D related assistance for the last seven years from
the Government of Canada.  The situation would have been different if his Government had turneddown requests for technical assistance.  His delegation did therefore not see how making the
provisions on technical assistance mandatory would solve the problem if no Member requested
technical assistance.  More Members should request technical assistance, and importing Members had
to be responsive to such requests.  That would effectively help address some of the concerns.  He
went on to say that, in contrast, some of the suggestions on Article 10.3 were not useful.  Article 10.3stated "With a view to ensuring that developing country Members are able to comply with theTN/CTD/M/10
Page 6
provisions of this Agreement, the Committee is enabled to grant to such countries, upon request,
specified, time-limited exceptions in whole or in part from obligations under this Agreement, taking
into account their financial, trade and development needs".  There were proposals to make the
granting of time limited exceptions mandatory.  However, no Member had ever asked the Committee
for such an exception.  The real problem seemed to lie in the fact that no country had ever requestedfor an exception, and the question therefore was why Members were not using Article 10.2.  Both the
demand and the supply side of S&D treatment had to be considered to find a way forward with the
aim of making it more flexible, effective and meaningful.
16. The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation believed that the SPS Committee
had been doing valuable work in the area of technical assistance, equivalence and transparency.  That
work should be recognized and further encouraged.  An assessment of the proposals showed that the
recommendations in the proposals did not effectively operationalize the S&D provisions in the SPSAgreement.  What the proposals did was to put an unsustainable burden on a number of Members that
risked to undermine the SPS Agreement.  He agreed with the delegations of Canada, Pakistan and
Malaysia there should be more focus on technical assistance.  However, that should be done on a
voluntarily rather than mandatory basis.  Nevertheless, more efforts to build capacity had to be
undertaken and more technical assistance had to be provided.  His Government was ready to play itspart.  The SPS Committee could deal with the issues of S&D in relation to the SPS Agreement in a
coherent manner, and there was already a work programme in place which could be broadened and
intensified.
17. The representative of Haiti referred to paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration,
which stated that all S&D provisions should be revi ewed with a view to strengthen them and making
them more precise, effective and operational.  He referred to the comments made by some delegations
who had questioned why there was a need to make certain provisions mandatory, and said that the
WTO was a rules-based organization.  He asked how it could be ensued that 144 Members carried out
the rules of the organization if there were no fixed rules.  The delegation of Switzerland had said that
the aim of the SPS Agreement was to protect consumers, animals and plants.  It was exactly with thatin mind that Article 9.2 should be reviewed and made mandatory.  It was suggested that a new
paragraph be added to Article 9 of the SPS Agreement, which would ensure that if an exporting
developing country member identified specific problems relating to inadequate technology and
infrastructure in fulfilling the SPS requirements of an importing developed Member, the latter shall
provide the former with the relevant technology and technical facilities.  He added that the provision
of technology and technical facilities should be provided on preferential and non-commercial terms,
preferably free of charge, taking the development, financial and trade needs of the exportingdeveloping country into account.
18. The representative of Mexico said that his delegation recognised the developing country
concerns with the proliferation of SPS measures.  To the Members who had difficulty in
understanding the reasons behind the proposals tabled, he said that one of the main concerns of
Members when receiving developed Members trade policies was the adoption of SPS measuresbeyond those allowed under the SPS Agreement.  If Members adhered to the SPS agreement there
would be no need for technical assistance.  Members currently required technical assistance each time
they needed to fulfil SPS obligations.  The need for technical assistance would be endless.  Therefore,
the proposals that had been submitted did not tackle the substance of the issue.  The substantive
challenge was to strictly satisfy the obligations of the SPS Agreement, particularly the obligations
regarding transparency.  He agreed with the statement made by the delegation of Argentina, that there
should be an implementation mechanism when technical assistance requests were submitted to enable
developing countries to meet the requirements of the SPS Agreement.  However, he said his
delegation did understand that even if the provisions were made mandatory, that would not help
improve the implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the SPS Agreement.  His delegation expressedsimilar concerns as those expressed by the delegation of Egypt, that many of the problems were due toTN/CTD/M/10
Page 7
the ambiguity and vagueness of some of the provisions of the SPS Agreement.  However, he did not
believe that the SPS Agreement should be amended.  His delegation encouraged the SPS Committee
to find good ways to implement Articles 9 and 10 of the SPS Agreement, as it had done for Article
5.5.
19. The representative of Egypt said that several delegations had expressed their concerns about
the non-utilisation of the S&D provisions in the SPS Agreement.  However, those provisions had been
utilised, but mainly on a bilateral basis.  The discussions in the SPS Committee concerning an SPS
regulation imposed by the European Communities on Alpha Toxin had been informative in that
regard.  That utilisation was not recorded by the Secretariat and was a different issue.  Sending
comments on the notifications were not required. It was even discouraged as it was said that it might
over-burden the Secretariat.  The representative of Pakistan had also provided an example of
unsatisfactory use of S&D provisions.  He asked whether it would be necessary for the delegation ofPakistan to go to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB ) to have such utilisation recorded.  He said his
delegation believed that non recorded utilisation should not be used as a pretext to refrain from
examining the S&D tabled.
20. The representative of Chile said that the representative of Haiti had made a good proposal.
When Members adopted standards which were not harmonized at the international level there should
be more transparency and clarity in defining the true risks.  He said that S&D treatment was not
always explicit in bilateral agreements.  A dialogue between developed and developing countries was
required.  He argued that technical assistance could be focused on strengthening developing countries'
capacities in order to have a more fair and equitabl e trade.  Developed countries should establish their
limits of tolerance based on past experiences and act in a way that would not hinder trade.
21. The representative of Argentina referred to the proposal to make an addition to Article 9.2
stating that exporting developing countries should be provided with technical assistance for diagnostic
methods in order to meet the requirements of the importing countries.  He proposed a simplification of
the administrative procedures as those procedures were often costly and constituted barriers for the
exporting developing countries.  It should be possible to make it cheaper for developing countryMembers to export and to make it easier for them to  comply with rules of origin requirements.  What
mattered was the concrete implementation of methods to increase access to developed country
markets.
22. The representative of Japan said that although technical assistance was important, the human
and financial resources for it were limited.  Donors and developing country Members had to cooperate
more on issues of technical assistance.  A Seminar relating to technical assistance had been held the
previous day.  The need for enhanced cooperation among the parties involved in technical assistancehad then become apparent.
23. The representative of the United States said that in order to build SPS-specific infrastructure
and enable Members to participate in the activities of the SPS Committee, his Government and other
Members had made a commitment to bring one trade official and one regulatory official to Geneva,
from each of the thirty two countries in the American and the Caribbean Region, to the meetings atthe SPS Committee three times a year.  The programme had begun in November 2002 and his
delegation would be interested to see how that programme evolved because he hoped that it would
help build capacity to implement both the rights and the obligations in the SPS Agreement.  He
referred to documents G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.1 a nd G/SPS/GEN/181/Add.2 which presented data on
technical assistance provided by his Government to other WTO Members for the implementation ofthe SPS Agreement.  The initial focus of that technical assistance had been on implementing basic
aspects of the SPS Agreement such as developing enquiry points and meeting notification obligations.
Members had in the last few sessions of the SPS Committee expressed the need for that focus to be
changed.  His Government had realized that it had to be more responsive to the needs of developingTN/CTD/M/10
Page 8
countries and LDCs, and wished to change the system from a donor-driven to a needs-driven technical
assistance programme.  He said that he wished to have more information from developing countries
and LDCs on the nature of the technical assistance they required.  Technical assistance would be most
productive if it focused on the specific export potential of recipient Members.  The nature of the
discussions in the SPS Committee had changed as more developing country Members had begun tobring their specific trade concerns to the PS Committee.  He hoped that Members would take
advantage of the changing dynamics in the SPS Committee and use the SPS Committee as a forum for
discussion before resorting to the Dispute Settlement Body.  He reminded delegations that many of
the issues addressed in the SPS Committee had been resolved and that only a few SPS disputes had
gone to the Dispute Settlement Body.
24. The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines said that his delegation appreciated the
sponsorship provided by the Government of the Unit ed States to participate in the meetings of the
SPS Committee.  Small island developing states and other developing countries believed in the same
principles of free trade as developed countries.  Nevertheless, countries like his could not fully
participate and integrate into multilateral trading system because of economic constraints.  His
Government and other banana producing countries had experienced difficult economic times and his
Government had taken the decision to diversify the economy.  St. Vincent and Grenadines had beenexporting fish to Martinique for decades.  Since Martinique was a part of France and France a part of
the European Communities, the SPS requirements of the European Communities were applicable.
Those SPS requirements demanded that his Government fulfil certain quality and standard
specifications.  His Government had received technical assistance from the Government of Japan who
had helped establish facilities to meet such specifications.  However, those facilities had still failed tomeet the standards set by the importing market of the European Communities.  His Government
therefore had to make further adjustments, but the European Communities had luckily agreed to
provide assistance.  The banana producing population which sought to diversify into other production
would otherwise not have been able to access the market for which those products were meant.  While
his delegation appreciated that it was every Member's obligation to meet the standards set by others,he believed that developed Members had a moral obligation to assist developing country Members to
enable them to meet the SPS standards set by importing developed country Members in traditional
areas of trade between the partners.  He agreed with the representative of Switzerland that the
underlying principle was to get safe food to the markets.  Nevertheless, he requested that assistance be
provided to producers in countries like his so that safe food could reach the market.  He recognized
that making it binding for developed country Members to provide assistance might put a strain on
their economies.  Nevertheless, they were already providing assistance to developing countries, so theonly difference would be that the requests for assistance would be specific.  He appreciated the
comments made by the delegation of Egypt that the specific developing country concerns had to be
addressed by the developed country Members.
25. The representative of Indonesia said that developing countries expected developed country
Members to show flexibility as they had failed to provide the necessary technology related capacity
building, some developed Members had proposed options for how to deal with technical assistance
under the SPS Agreement.  As his delegation hoped for concrete results, he looked forward to further
discussions based on the solutions proposed..  The SPS Agreement was important for his Government,
but due to the lack of technical capacity, Indonesian producers found it difficult to meet the technical
standards introduced by their major developed country Members.  He urged the major developedtrading partners to introduce flexible options in order to facilitate for developing countries to increase
their exports.
26. The representative of Uganda said that his delegation was encouraged as Member's reactions
were more positive than they had been in the past. With respect to the comment made by the
delegation of Canada on non-utilisation of the S&D treatment provisions, he said that that was exactlythe question the Ministers at the Doha Ministerial Conference had addressed.  The language in theTN/CTD/M/10
Page 9
Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns showed that Ministers had agreed that all
S&D provisions should be reviewed with a view to strengthening them, making them more precise,
effective and operational.  That was a recognition of the ineffective utilisation of S&D provisions and
that something had to be done about it.  He agr eed with the representative of Egypt that S&D
provisions had been utilised at a bilateral level.  The reason for that was that most of the S&Dprovisions were of a non-binding nature which forced Members to take action on a bilateral level.
Making the provisions binding would increase the scope for their effective utilisation.  Members
would not have to beg if their implementation was given.  Members therefore needed to focus on the
mandate given to them by the Ministers at the Doha Ministerial Conference.  He appreciated the view
expressed by the representative of United States that assistance should henceforth be needs-driven to
satisfy the specific needs of the recipient Members.
27. The representative of the Philippines reiterated that the principle of S&D was a developing
country right.  As it was a right, S&D should be enjoyed by developing countries.  S&D therefore
needed to be nurtured, protected and supported in order for products originating in developing country
to get better access to the main markets.  Technical assistance had to be recipient-driven and focussed
on the products of interest to developing countries, such as tropical products and not on products of
interest to developed countries.
28. The representative of Kenya said that his delegation was encouraged by the comments made
regarding the proposals on the table and was confident that some progress had been made in the
discussions on S&D provisions.  However, he was concerned by comments suggesting that some of
the issues should rather have been taken up in the SPS Committee.  The Special Session of the CTD
had a reporting deadline in July 2002 which had to be postponed to December 2002.  Given that lessthan two months were left until then, he questioned whether the work would be completed in time if it
was to be referred to the SPS Committee.  He appealed to Members to continue to work in the Special
Session in order for the December 2002 deadline to be met.
29. The representative of India said that he had heard some encouraging comments on his
delegations' proposal TN/CTD/W/6 during the discussion, and hoped that concrete results would be
achieved on the mandate given by Ministers at the Doha Ministerial Conference.  His delegation
appreciated the comments made by the delegations of Egypt and Uganda on the utilisation of S&D
provisions.  He believed that the primary objective of the work on S&D provisions was to make them
precise, effective and operational.
30. The Chairman said the Special Session had had an interesting exchange of views on the
proposals tabled.  That provided the Special Session a good foundation to move ahead.  Nevertheless,
time was scarce before the Special Session had to report to the General Council with clearrecommendations for a decision.  Technical assistance had received a lot of attention and all Members
had recognised its importance as well as the need to ensure its effective delivery.  More work should
be undertaken in that respect as progress seemed possible.  Responses to the proposals made on
Article 10.4 of the SPS Agreement by the delegation of India and on Article 10.1 by the African
Group and the Like-Minded Group suggested some rece ptivity to some of the elements contained in
those proposals.  Proposals had also been put forth regarding the development of guidelines for
equivalence.  Taken together, the Special Session had enough material to take the discussions further.
It was important that the Special Session received as many substantive comments on the proposals
tabled as possible as those comments would provide the basis for the Special session to meet its
mandate by the last General Council meeting of the year, scheduled for 9 and 10
 December 2002.
Further consultations would be necessary to consider  what to do with some of the specific proposals.
31. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________