LDCs often face capacity and financial constraints, resulting in low compliance rates. Enhanced support, improved WTO capacity, and increased cooperation and knowledge sharing are needed.
Image Source: Getty
In April 2024, the World Trade Organization (WTO) met to discuss non-compliance with notifications. Notifications report key trade-related policies and measures. They ensure transparency in the global trading system by requiring countries to report on policies that could affect other members. Unfortunately, compliance with notifications has been low. At the recent meeting, it was reported that 90 members failed to submit their 2023 notifications under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, while 83 and 72 members had not submitted their 2021 and 2019 notifications respectively. This has been a long-standing problem for the WTO. Efforts to address this issue have been ongoing. In 2018, The European Union (EU), Japan, and the United States (US) submitted a proposal for notification reforms. However, developing countries led by India, South Africa and the African Union (AU) pushed back against this proposal, arguing that it did not consider the difficulties developing countries faced. These discussions eventually led to changes that made obligations more favourable for developing countries. However, the persistent low compliance rates show that there is still a way to go.
Notifications arise from transparency obligations under WTO agreements and involve factual reporting of domestic policies and laws that may distort trade. There are three types of notifications: those required periodically, on a one-time basis, and on an ad-hoc basis. Notifications serve two main purposes: (i) they promote compliance among members because periodic reviews increase the likelihood of identifying potential violations, and (ii) they provide information essential to the negotiating function at the WTO by helping members identify areas to negotiate.
Strict reporting standards and comprehensive subsidy and regulatory data requirements have led countries, particularly Least Developed Countries (LDCs), to perform poorly on their obligations.
It is estimated that over 200 agreements exist in the WTO requiring notifications. The number of notifications continues to grow as new agreements and obligations are added. Thus, complying with notification obligations is a mammoth task for any country. Strict reporting standards and comprehensive subsidy and regulatory data requirements have led countries, particularly Least Developed Countries (LDCs), to perform poorly on their obligations. Many LDCs have a small staff handling all aspects of WTO participation. In 2021, for example, G7 countries had on average 36 representatives in Geneva as permanent representatives whereas LDCs had 6.
Additionally, many developing countries have difficulties understanding the frequency and complexity of highly technical information required in notifications. They may struggle with providing complete responses in their notifications. Financial constraints further compound this issue as LDCs may prioritise meeting domestic needs over multilateral obligations.
LDCs performance on the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) notifications highlights the issue of non-compliance. SPS and TBT are most frequently notified by WTO members and participation in their reporting represents one of the core responsibilities of members towards policy transparency[1]. Table 1 looks at Developed Countries’ and LDCs' compliance with SPS & TBT notification requirements. These notifications are filled as needed, on an ad hoc basis. Most LDCs have fallen below 50 percent of notification obligations between 2013-2023. These countries may not have taken any action requiring notifications in some years. However, not submitting any notifications for 11 years, as 10 LDCs have done, implies a systemic problem. Countries such as Chad, Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Timor-Leste and Solomon Islands do not have National Enquiry Points, which are responsible for providing information, responding to requests and handling comments on notifications. Uganda is the only country from the LDC group that has submitted notifications for each year between 2013 and 2023. It has achieved this level of frequency through strengthening the regulatory framework and capacity-building efforts. Uganda’s National TBT/SPS Committee was established in 2004 to coordinate among multiple ministries and departments for notification submissions. In addition, Uganda in collaboration with the United Nations led the implementation of ePing[2] in 2015 to improve capacity for notifications monitoring and submissions. The achievements of this program have been four regional centres for training and over 247 users of the platform.
Table 1: Frequency of members filling SPS & TBT notifications 2013-2023
| 0% | 1-50% | 51-99% | 100% | |
| Developed Countries | Iceland Liechtenstein | Norway | United Kingdom | Australia Canada European Union (EU)* Japan New Zealand Russian Federation Switzerland United States |
| Least Developed Countries (LDCs) | Benin Chad Comoros Djibouti Guinea Bissau Lesotho Niger Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Timor Leste | Afghanistan Angola Cambodia Democratic Republic of the Congo Liberia Mali Mauritania Burkina Faso Guinea Haiti Zambia Bangladesh Central African Republic Senegal Lao People’s Democratic Republic Madagascar Myanmar Togo | The Gambia Mozambique Nepal Rwanda Yemen Burundi | Uganda |
Source: Figures based on the author’s calculations from data obtained from ePing SPS&TBT platform.
Note: *Counting all EU member states as one
In 2018, the EU, Japan, and the US recognised notification obligations as an area of accelerated action. They submitted a document to the General Council that went beyond members’ existing notification obligations and proposed to take members' rights away if they defaulted on obligations. The reforms suggested highly punitive measures, referred to as ‘administrative measures’ in the document. Some of the proposed measures included: (i) preventing the defaulting member's representative from being nominated to lead WTO bodies, (ii) ignoring any questions raised by the member during Trade Policy Reviews, and (iii) subjecting the member to more frequent reporting at the General Council. The most severe suggestion was labelling a member as inactive if they defaulted three years in a row. In response, India and South Africa submitted a document in 2019, which argued that the approach to notification reforms should entail examining ways to improve the capacity of developing countries to fulfil their obligations. This led to the US, EU, and Japan submitting a revision of their original proposal in 2022, taking the suggestions from developing countries. All administrative measures and financial sanctions for non-compliance were fully withdrawn. The most significant change in the document was shifting its focus from solely emphasising compliance to also addressing the difficulties faced by members.
Out of the 80 countries that submitted notifications on Subsides and Countervailing Measures (SCM) in 2023, only eight were LDCs.
As a response to the proposal, WTO has expanded its technical assistance programmes to help developing countries meet their obligations. WTO organises 300 technical assistance programmes yearly and 45 percent are directed towards LDCs. Despite efforts, LDCs compliance with notifications continues to be low. SPS & TBT notification compliance for LDCs has been low. In addition, out of the 80 countries that submitted notifications on Subsides and Countervailing Measures (SCM) in 2023, only eight were LDCs. This is because the technical assistance programmes, even if available, cannot compensate for the lack of capacity in LDCs.
To improve LDC compliance, the approach to notification reforms should be three-pronged:
Firstly, special and differential support to LDCs should be extended to cover a wider range of agreements. Current support extended to LDCs is limited to a few agreements namely, the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). LDCs are granted flexibility under the Agreement on Agriculture, where they are expected to notify Domestic Support Notification every two years, whereas other members notify annually. Additionally, under TRIPS, a transitional period is provided to LDCs where they can delay the implementation of the agreement’s obligations. Provisions such as these are crucial because they address administrative and technical challenges faced by LDCs. These provisions provide more time for the LDCs to meet their international commitments and mobilise resources effectively. Therefore, to provide comprehensive support to LDCs, extended deadlines such as the ones in TRIPS and the Agreement on Agriculture need to be expanded to cover more agreements.
LDCs are granted flexibility under the Agreement on Agriculture, where they are expected to notify Domestic Support Notification every two years, whereas other members notify annually.
Secondly, strengthening the institutional capacity of the WTO to address notification compliance is essential. Members should prioritise reviving the Working Group on Notification Obligations and Procedures. The Working Group was established in 1994 to undertake a review of notification obligations and procedures, however, it has been inactive for the past years. The original proposal by the US, EU, and Japan suggested reviving the Working Group to develop recommendations on improving compliance in consultation with the WTO Committees and the WTO Secretariat. Members should prioritise reaching a consensus on the revival of the Working Group. Once it is established it can work on the simplification of notification formats as this would contribute greatly to improvement in compliance. In addition, WTO can collaborate with organisations such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or a group of consultants to assist with collecting information on subsidies and trade policies to file submissions on behalf of the members.
Thirdly, WTO should encourage closer cooperation amongst LDCs for knowledge sharing. LDCs that are performing well on notification compliance should be identified and encouraged to share best practices with their peers. Given that many LDCs are concentrated in a geographical area, establishing regional centres for collaboration and training would be more practical than relying on locations like Geneva. A successful example is Uganda, which in 2016 trained stakeholders in Rwanda on SPS and TBT transparency procedures and supported the implementation of ePing in other East African countries.
Given that many LDCs are concentrated in a geographical area, establishing regional centres for collaboration and training would be more practical than relying on locations like Geneva.
While the WTO has made significant progress in addressing notification compliance through reforms and technical assistance programmes, some challenges remain. LDCs often struggle with capacity and financial constraints leading to low compliance rates. Further steps are needed, such as extending special support to LDCs, improving WTO’s institutional capacity and encouraging cooperation and knowledge sharing. Although progress has been made, achieving full compliance will require a deeper focus on addressing the root causes of non-compliance, especially among the most vulnerable members.
Anika Chhillar is a Research Intern at the Observer Research Foundation.
[1] Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) notifications give information on technical regulations and standards for the safety of consumers and the environment. Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) notifications give information on regulations on food safety and disease prevention.
[2] ePing is an online alert system that monitors notifications related to SPS and TBT agreements.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Anika Chhillar is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Economy and Growth, ORF New Delhi. Her work focuses on international trade and industrial policy ...
Read More +
PREV
