Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Category: WTO

  • Jamaica ratifies Trade Facilitation Agreement; WTO DG Visits Jamaica

    Alicia Nicholls

    Jamaica has become the  67th member country of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to ratify the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) on January 19th this year. Jamaica is the sixth country of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to have ratified the TFA. The other CARICOM countries which have already ratified are Trinidad & Tobago, Belize, Guyana, St. Lucia and Grenada.

    The TFA was concluded at the Bali Ministerial in 2013 and seeks to cut the red tape and reduce the transaction costs and delays in the movement, release and clearance of goods across borders through the harmonisation, simplification and acceleration of customs procedures.  The TFA, which the WTO predicts to increase global merchandise exports by up to 1 trillion by per year, will come into force once two-thirds of the WTO’s membership ratifies the Agreement. Earlier this month Seychelles became the 66th WTO member to ratify, while Mali this week became the 68th member and 10th African country to do so, bringing the total number of ratifications to 68.

    The announcement of Jamaica’s ratification comes on the heels of the WTO Director General, Roberto Azevedo’s official visit to Jamaica this week. Jamaica is currently the chair of the CARICOM Group in the WTO and has been very active in the WTO negotiations. In his speech at the University of the West Indies’ Mona Campus in Jamaica, Director General Azevedo lauded Jamaica’s leadership and participation in the multilateral trade process from as early as the days of GATT, particularly in light of the country’s relatively small size. The Director General will also be visiting other CARICOM countries.

    The ratification by Jamaica is a welcomed development and it is hoped more CARICOM states will follow suit. My article on the benefits of the TFA for small island developing states can be accessed here.

    The full text of the Director General’s speech in Jamaica may be accessed here.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. is a trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade.  You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

     

  • WTO Nairobi Ministerial leaves Caribbean Small Vulnerable Economies Empty Handed

    Alicia Nicholls

    The ‘Nairobi Package’ has been hailed as having secured “an historic agreement on a series of trade initiatives”. Without doubt, the delegates of the WTO’s Tenth Ministerial held in December last year in Nairobi, Kenya sought to draw inspiration from the historic conclusion of the Paris Agreement on climate change at COP21 and to capitalise on the euphoria of the first WTO Ministerial on African soil to achieve consensus in the few areas where it was deemed to be possible. However, while there were a few mostly modest achievements, particularly for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), most Caribbean countries would be justified in opining that they came away from Nairobi with very little to show for their efforts.

    Issues for Caribbean SVEs

    Caribbean countries have been strong supporters of the multilateral trading system and of the Doha Development Round. As stated  by Senator Arnold J. Nicholson of Jamaica on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) at the Ministerial’s Opening Plenary session, some of the key issues of importance to CARICOM going into Nairobi were:

    • Adoption of decisions relating to the G-90 proposals on Special and Differential treatment provisions including those related to small, vulnerable economies and least developed countries
    • Agricultural issues, including the Special Safeguard Mechanism, which was proposed by the G-33 in November, 2015
    • Fisheries Subsidies
    • Work Programme on Small Economies
    • Special measures for least developed countries

    So what did the Nairobi Ministerial achieve?

    Export Competition in Agriculture: Developed countries have committed to immediately eliminating their remaining scheduled farm export subsidies with some exceptions. It is the first major agricultural agreement to be concluded since the WTO came into being at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round two decades ago. Developing countries have been given until 2018 to eliminate their farm export subsidies and up to 2022 for certain products and groups of products. Least developed countries (LDCs) and the net food importing developing countries have a longer period. Additionally, the decision also includes disciplines on export policies to prevent their use as subsidies in disguise.

    LDC Package: Of benefit to Haiti as the only LDC within the Caribbean, the ‘LDC Package’ includes enhanced preferential rules of origin which build on those in the Bali package and a fifteen year extension of the waiver for preferential treatment of LDC service providers. Developed and developing country Members which have declared themselves in a position to do so have agreed to grant duty-free and quota-free market access for LDC cotton from January 1, 2016, to the extent provided for in their respective preferential trade arrangements. Developing country Members which have declared themselves not in a position to grant duty-free and quota-free market access for cotton produced and exported by LDCs are to consider the possibilities for increased import opportunities for LDC cotton from January 1, 2016. Developed countries are to immediately eliminate export subsidies on cotton, while developing countries have until January 1, 2017 to do so.

    Information Technology Agreement (ITA-II): In the biggest IT trade deal since the Information Technology Agreement was agreed to in 1996, 53 WTO members representing a mix of developed and developing countries (including Mauritius) agreed to eliminate tariffs on 201 information technology goods which account for a reported $1.3 trillion in trade.Tariffs on an estimated 65% of tariff lines will be fully eliminated by July 1 of this year, with the majority of the remaining tariff lines to be gradually phased out in four stages within three years. As the ITA-II was agreed on a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) basis, all WTO members will enjoy duty-free access for those covered goods to the markets of countries which have signed the Agreement.

    WTO Members also adopted the reaffirmed Work Programme on Small Economies. Additionally, two LDC countries, Liberia and Afghanistan, completed their accession negotiations. This shows that despite the stalemate in the multilateral negotiations states still view the WTO as having value.

    Unresolved Issues

    Despite these modest results, the Nairobi Declaration does leave many  issues unresolved and it would not be unfair to say that the Caribbean SVEs left the Ministerial largely empty handed. To date the services negotiations, a key area for the services-dependent economies of the Caribbean, remain deadlocked. No decision was made at Nairobi on the G-90 proposals on special and differential treatment.

    Fisheries Subsidies and IUU: Disappointingly, no agreement was reached on the pressing issue of fisheries subsidies which have led to over-fishing, or on the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU). These practices, which serve to shrink already rapidly depleting fish stocks, pose serious threats to coastal states’ food security, employment, income generation and the stability of their rural communities. By extension, they will have consequences for SVEs achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their targets.

    SSM & Public Stockholding: Even where decisions were taken, they remain subject to further negotiation. It was agreed that developing countries have the right to an SSM by which they will temporarily be able to increase tariffs in response to import surges. However, the actual details of this mechanism remain to be determined in subsequent negotiations. On the issue of public stockholding, WTO members are no closer to a permanent solution.

    SVEs have also expressed their disillusion with the lack of consideration given to many of their proposals, including the proposal for a development package for Nairobi which had been tabled by the ACP countries.

    Uncertain Future for Doha 

    Critically and most telling, WTO members have been unable to reach any consensus on the future of the Doha Round. This lack of agreement was unprecedentedly mentioned in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.

    After fourteen years of negotiations and limited progress to show outside of the Trade Facilitation Agreement concluded at Bali, developed countries have called for Doha to be euthanised.  In a letter penned in the Financial Times , the United States Trade Representative, Michael Froman, strongly stated that “Doha was designed in a different era, for a different era, and much has changed since’. He further asserted that “[f]reeing ourselves from the strictures of Doha would also allow us to explore emerging trade issues”.

    On the contrary, most developing countries, including Caribbean countries, have been vocal in their opposition to any attempt to jettison the Doha Round. Barbados’ representative, the Hon Senator Maxine McClean, in her statement on behalf of the ACP at the Opening Plenary summed up the importance of the Doha Round to Barbados as follows:

    “Barbados places great store in the Doha Development Agenda, as it recognises that need to narrow inequalities in the share of trade between developed countries and in particular the small and the vulnerable economies.”

    While WTO members have committed in the Nairobi Declaration to continuing negotiations on the remaining issues under the Doha Round, the future for the Doha mandate does not look bright, especially since the USTR has already pronounced the Round dead.

    The Question of Emerging Issues

    Another unresolved issue relates to expanding the sphere of negotiations to include emerging trade issues in light of the changing contours of global trade. There is some merit to this view put forward by developed countries. Trade disciplines which were negotiated twenty years ago cannot adequately regulate all of the newer complexities of twenty-first century global trade. Some of the new areas proposed include the long mooted “Singapore issues” of investment, competition policy and transparency in government procurement, as well as newer areas like e-commerce, global value chains, environment and labour.

    This suggestion has been forcefully resisted by developing countries which argue that their limited capacity to engage in negotiations on these new areas puts them at an inherent disadvantage, and instead favour the conclusion of the Doha Round before any new issues are added. Paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Declaration takes this disagreement into account by mandating that any agreement to launch negotiations on new issues must be agreed to by all.

    What next?

    As negotiators resume their work in Geneva on the remaining Doha issues, WTO members will have to decide on the future of the Doha Round. Progress will likely continue on the plurilateral agreements, such as the Environmental Goods Agreement and Trade in Services Agreement. In regards to the issue of regional trade agreements, WTO members have committed to making the provisional Transparency Mechanism a permanent one as was decided by the General Council in 2006. Progress on more contentious issues such as non-agricultural market access (NAMA), anti-dumping, domestic support measures and services will likely to be slower.

    Two points must be noted. Firstly, whether members decide to jettison the Doha Round or adopt a new mandate, the development element must be central to all negotiations. Secondly, the polarisation between developed countries and the majority of developing countries, coupled with the increased heterogeneity of the WTO’s membership, continue to be impediments to any substantive progress. The only way for the stalemate to be broken will be by serious compromise but without jeopardising the development prospects and interests of developing countries.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. is a trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

  • Upcoming WTO Ministerial in Nairobi: Does the COP21 offer any lessons for progress?

    Alicia Nicholls

    Coming on the heels of the successful conclusion of a not perfect but monumental Paris Agreement at COP21 setting the framework for post-2015 global cooperation on climate change, the eyes of the world have now turned to another sphere of international cooperation this week – trade. On December 15-18th trade ministers and delegates from over 160 World Trade Organisation member countries will gather in Nairobi, Kenya, for the WTO’s tenth annual Ministerial Conference.

    The Nairobi Ministerial seeks to be a turning point in the currently deadlocked multilateral trade negotiations. While climate change and trade are two related but separate issues, the success at Paris causes one to wonder whether there are any take-away lessons from COP21 that can be used in achieving a substantive outcome in Nairobi.

    In July Director General of the WTO, Roberto Azevedo lamented the lack of sufficient progress to deliver a work programme on the remaining issues of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) by the 31 July deadline. More recently on December 11,  he noted while there were no deliverables for Nairobi, there was some hope that hard work could lead to some potential outcomes; a package of measures for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), an agreement on export competition in agriculture, special safeguard mechanisms and public stockholding for food security purposes. Even so, agreement will not be easy. Some states have also been working on plurilateral agreements which include the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), the Information Technology Agreement-2 (ITA-2) and the Agreement in Environmental Goods and Services.

    The Paris Agreement was finalised after two intense weeks but was twenty years in the making. Like the pathway to the conclusion of the Paris Agreement, the pathway towards what we all hope will eventually be a final Doha Agreement one day has been one fraught with frustration, failure,  missed deadlines and sparse successes here and there.

    The 10th Ministerial will be the sixth ministerial conference to have been held since the Doha Agenda was launched at the 4th Ministerial in Doha, Qatar in 2001. The Doha Agenda encompasses an ambitious set of 21 issues, including agriculture, non-agricultural market access (NAMA), anti-dumping, subsidies and safeguards, cotton, dispute settlement, e-commerce, the environment, government procurement and information technology agreements, intellectual property, LDCs, services and trade facilitation.  Agreement is to be achieved by consensus (agreement by all) and all of the negotiations are to be treated as components of a ‘single undertaking’, although there is also legal provision for an early harvest under Paragraph 47 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.

    Nearly fifteen years after the start of negotiations, there has been little success to show. The notable exception is the Trade Facilitation Agreement which was concluded at the Bali Ministerial in 2013 and which has only been ratified by 57 of the WTO’s 162 members to date. There are also draft decisions like those on e-commerce and on assisting the integration of small economies to be adopted at the Ministerial this week. LDCs also scored some victory as the TRIPs Council extended until January 2033 the period during which key provisions of the TRIPS Agreement do not apply to pharmaceutical products in LDCs. But when considered against the ambitious scope which Doha had set for itself, these “successes” are not even a tip of the iceberg.

    High level of symbolism

    In both the COP21 and upcoming Nairobi Ministerial there is a level of symbolism attached to the points in time in which they are being held. In Paris, the delegates recognised that now more than ever was the opportunity for an agreement on a framework for climate change cooperation before it was too late to reverse course.

    Turning to the upcoming WTO Ministerial, not only is this the twentieth anniversary of the WTO’s existence but the first time that a WTO Ministerial will take place on the African continent. President Kenyatta’s message sums up well the hopes that African countries, which comprise 43 of the WTO’s member states, have about the significance of the WTO’s first ministerial in Africa:

    “This Ministerial Conference will be the first to take place on African soil, a historic occasion, which will do much to help further integrate the African continent into the global trading system.”

    Less optimistically, the Nairobi Ministerial  comes against the backdrop of a slowdown in global trade growth and within an uncertain global economy. Given the important role of trade in the global economy, any further movement on the negotiations front would be a positive signal.

    Diverse set of countries

    COP21 had brought together 196 countries ranging the gamut from small island developing states (SIDS), landlocked states, to industrialised nations to least-developed countries (LDCs).

    Similarly, the WTO’s membership, which will increase to 164 with the accession of two LDCS Afghanistan and Liberia, comprises a geographically diverse set of states whose varying interests and perspectives can be seen from just a cursory look at the various negotiating groups. This makes achievement of consensus on such a wide range of issues even more elusive. Large developing countries like India and China are now major players in global trade which has compelled some developed countries to object to their continued classification as “developing” countries.

    Developmental thrust but diverging interests

    In the COP21 negotiations there were several thorny issues which at some stage seemed irreconcilable. Compromise was eventually achieved in the final text. Likewise, the paralysis in the Doha Round is due to entrenched positions by both developed and developing countries on politically sensitive issues. In summary, developing nations believe that the demands by developed nations are not taking into account their development levels and objectives, while developed nations argue developing nations are not being ambitious enough in their commitments. An unfortunate consequence therefore is that members have been taking advantage of the issue-linkages by tying outcomes in one area to negotiations in other areas.

    The Chairman of the Agriculture Negotiating Group reported as of December 7 that “[d]espite the intensive consultations and progress made, there is still no appreciable convergence on any of the issues Members are working on, with a limited exception in the case of cotton”.

    Agriculture is one of the most politically sensitive issues for states and the major issues surround public stockholding, export competition, domestic support and access and the special safeguard mechanism. Any binding commitments on these issues are not simply words on a paper but will have implications for developing countries’ local farming industries, their rural poor and food security. The G-33 proposal reintroduced in November 2014 has again argued that public stockholding for food security purposes should be designated as subsidies that cause no or minimum trade distortion, the so-called “Green Box” which are except from ceilings or reductions. The ‘peace clause’, which India was able to secure at the Bali Ministerial, is only a temporary solution.  The G-33 also call for a special safeguard mechanism in agriculture whereby developing countries, with special flexibilities given to LDCs and SVEs, can temporarily raise tariffs on farm goods in response to any sudden import surges or price reductions. However, according to the latest Chairman’s report, other Members are opposed to the “idea of an outcome on SSM at MC10 in the absence of a broader outcome on agriculture market access”. Members are also still unable to come to any form of consensus on the issue of domestic support and market access.

    Another issue of importance to developing countries, including SVEs, is on improved flexibilities for tariff cuts in NAMA. They have been successful so far in having the current draft negotiating text (Rev.4) contain explicit mention of SVEs and specific treatment in market access, domestic support and export competition. However, the Chairman of the NAMA negotiating group reported on December 7 that “real progress on NAMA has remained elusive since the 9th Ministerial Conference in Bali” and that negotiations and ambition in NAMA appear to be linked to the agriculture negotiations.

    There are 48 WTO members which are LDCs, 33 of which are African states. Critically for LDCs would be the completion of a package of measures specific to LDCs which provides duty-free, quota-free market access for LDC cotton and cotton products, DFQF access to 100% of products originating from LDCs and preferential rules of origin which would ensure that LDCs can take advantage of any market access concessions. The Ministerial Conference in Bali in 2013 had called on developed country members, which had not yet done so, to provide DFQF access to least 97% of products originating from LDCs. Most countries provide some DFQF access to LDC goods, including China and India, but these are still far short of the requirement and less than the 100% which years ago Millennium Development Goal 8 had called for.

    For Small Vulnerable Economies (SVEs), besides work on the work programme for SVEs and recognition of their unique challenges through greater flexibilities and longer commitment periods, a key issue is on rules for fisheries subsidies. The fishing industry is important for SVEs as a source of food and nutrition, economic livelihood, community stability and as a contributor to GDP. Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries tabled a proposal which includes areas on fisheries subsidies to be addressed, including IUU fishing. The fisheries subsidies are being negotiated in the Rules Negotiations which also includes the issues of anti-dumping and countervailing measures. The Chairman Report notes that some links have been drawn by Members between outcomes in anti-dumping and fisheries while there is disagreement as to the inclusion and scope of transparency rules as a focus of the negotiating group’s work and as an outcome of the Rules negotiations. Progress on service negotiations has been non-existent for some time.

    Need for compromise

    As shown, there is a wide range of outstanding issues to be discussed at Nairobi and consensus must be reached on all for there to be any agreement. On most fronts, there are wide cleavages between negotiating positions which seem almost impossible to be bridged. Wide divergences existed in the COP21 negotiations as well, particularly on the issue of the target limit for temperature increase, loss and damage and climate finance. However, in the end what made the Paris Agreement achievable was compromise.

    Are WTO members willing to compromise to achieve outcomes? In many cases, it does not appear so. As it stands, there seems to be a splintering of opinion on whether the Doha Agenda should be pursued as the framework for the post-2015 trading agenda. ICTSD Bridges reported developing countries as expressing concern that developed countries have indicated that they “would not join a consensus on a Nairobi declaration that reaffirms the Doha declaration or subsequent ministerial communiques that mention the ongoing Doha Round of talks”.  Moving away from the Doha Agenda, an agenda which is developmental in its outlook, is a move which developing countries should not support. Among other things the Doha Ministerial Declaration reaffirms parties commitment to the objective of sustainable development, confirms that technical cooperation and capacity building are core elements of the development dimension of the multilateral trading system, reaffirms that provisions for special and differential treatment are an integral part of the WTO Agreements and agrees to a work programme, under the auspices of the General Council, to examine issues relating to the trade of small economies.

    There has also been calls by developed countries for an expansion of the current negotiating agenda to include the “Singapore” issues of competition policy, investment measures and government procurement and newer issues which take into account the growing digital economy. Developing countries are firmly against the inclusion of any extra issues, especially the “Singapore” issues, out of fears that any binding obligations in these areas would further erode policy space. Others fear that their limited capacity to implement obligations on these areas would put them at risk of having claims brought against them in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Moreover, developing countries are also against the widening of the agenda to include any additional areas when developed countries have shown little interest in compromising on existing areas such as on the large agricultural subsidies they give to their farmers.

    Frustration with the deadlock in the Doha negotiations has led to an increase in regional trade negotiations, evidenced by the trend towards ‘mega regional trade agreements’ such as the recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. While I do not necessarily see these mega agreements as threats to the multilateral trading system, the growing frustration with the current negotiations makes the need for Nairobi to be a turning point even more critical.

    The way forward?

    The Paris Agreement is by no means perfect but has been endorsed by both developed and developing states. The key success factors at the COP21 which led to an agreement were a shared vision that the sustainable future of the world depended on a deal at that moment, a group of States which were prepared to accept nothing less than a deal which put the planet and their survival first, and the political will on the part of all States to put aside narrow political and national interests to come up with a meaningful agreement, even where that necessitated some compromise on politically sensitive issues.

    In the case of the Nairobi Ministerial, some of these factors exist. This year is the twentieth anniversary of the WTO’s existence. There is recognition at least in principle that actions taken at Nairobi will affect the course of the global trade agenda and that the first WTO ministerial conference on African soil is the opportune moment for pushing for outcomes which will go a long way in integrating African countries into the global trading system. Moreover, developing countries, including African LDCs, have insisted and continue to insist that any outcomes must be developmental in focus. The requirement of consensus means that compromise by both developed and developing countries will be necessary to bridge the wide gaps between members’ negotiating positions but not where such compromise defeats development objectives. Any Nairobi outcomes must be ambitious but fair, global in outlook but take into consideration the vulnerabilities and capabilities of developing countries (particularly SVEs and LDCs) and complement the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. In the end, as always, it will all come down to political will.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. is a trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. Please note that the views expressed in this article are solely hers. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

  • WTO General Council Agrees Draft Ministerial Decision on Small Economies

    Alicia Nicholls

    On November 30th, the General Council of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreed on a draft ministerial decision on small economies which affirms WTO Members’ commitment to the work programme on small economies which was adopted in 2002.

    The Draft Decision

    Under the Draft Decision agreed to this week, WTO members meeting as the General Council have:

    • Affirmed their commitment to the Work Programme on Small Economies
    • Taken note of the work carried out since 2013, including on the challenges and opportunities faced by small economies in linking into global value chains in trade in goods and services
    • Instructed the CTD to continue its work in Dedicated Session under the overall responsibility of the General Council.
    • Instructed the Dedicated Session to consider in further detail the various submissions that have been received to date, examine any additional proposals that Members might wish to submit and, where possible, and within its mandate, make recommendations to the General Council on any of these proposals.
    • Indicated that the General Council will direct relevant subsidiary bodies to frame responses to the trade-related issues identified by the CTD with a view to making recommendations for action.
    • Instructed the WTO Secretariat to provide relevant information and factual analysis for discussion among Members in the CTD’s Dedicated Session
    • Requested the WTO Secretariat to also conduct work on the challenges small economies experience in their efforts to reduce trade costs, particularly in the area of trade facilitation.
    • Mandated the CTD in Dedicated Session to continue monitoring the progress of the small economy proposals in WTO bodies and in negotiating groups

    The Draft Decision has been forwarded to the Ministerial Conference to be held in Nairobi, Kenya later this month for adoption by the WTO ministers.

    Brief background on Small Economies 

    The Small Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) do not form an official sub-category of WTO members but are one of the negotiating coalitions in the WTO which have been active in the negotiations on agriculture, NAMA and fisheries rules.

    These small states, which  account for only a small fraction of world trade, pushed for WTO recognition of the unique  challenges they face in participating in world trade because of their small size, concentration of exports, distance from major markets, lack of economies of scale and limited trade capacity. They also expressed concern about what they saw was an erosion of their policy space.

    The countries which have been spearheading the SVE initiative are small island states in the Caribbean and the Pacific and smaller Central and South America nations like Honduras, El Salvador and Paraguay.

    The Doha Ministerial Declaration of November 20, 2001, which provided the negotiating mandate for the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, provided for a work programme “to examine issues relating to the trade of small economies”. Paragraph 35 of the Declaration states the objective of the work programme is to:

    frame responses to the trade-related issues identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system, and not to create a sub-category of WTO Members.

    The Work Programme on small states is being done under the auspices of the General Council which instructed the Council on Trade and Development (CTD) in March  2002 to hold dedicated sessions  on the work programme and make periodic progress reports to the General Council, making the work programme on small states an agenda item of the General Council.

    Under paragraph 41 of the Hong Kong Ministerial 2005 a two-pronged track was agreed where the CTD was instructed, under the General Council’s responsibility, to continue the work in the Dedicated Session and to monitor progress of the small economies’ proposals in the negotiating and other bodies. The aim of this was to be able to provide responses to the trade-related issues of small economies.

    So far several Ministerial and General Council decisions have been taken and proposals by SVEs have been made in areas such as agriculture, industrial goods, service trade and trade facilitation. These decisions as well as proposals are routinely compiled by the WTO Secretariat to show what has been achieved under this agenda item so far. The text of the most recent WTO Secretariat compilation paper of October 16, 2015 may be found here.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. is a trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. Please note that the views expressed in this article are solely hers. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.