TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct26/21)
20 October 2026
Third World Network

WTO: ACP Group outlines vision for development reform
Published in SUNS #10537 dated 20 October 2026 

Geneva, 19 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) -- The African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) Group, representing the largest bloc of World Trade Organization members, told the facilitator overseeing the discussions on the WTO reform track on development that they seek "practical implementation and development outcomes that make existing provisions and mandates effective, accessible and operational," amid fears of attenuating special and differential treatment (S&DT), most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment, and the principle of less-than-full-reciprocity.

During a consultation convened by the facilitator on her own responsibility on 16 October, the Group stressed that "development must enable industrialisation, diversification and structural transformation."

Ambassador Tsiu Khathibe of Lesotho, the ACP Coordinator, conveyed to the facilitator, Ambassador Nthisana Motsete-Phillips of Botswana, that reform of development should address "tariff escalation, obstacles to value addition and structural constraints on exports, recognising needs relating to digital capacity and climate resilience."

The ACP Group emphasized that "Longer transition periods and training alone are insufficient; assistance must complement substantive legal flexibility."

Member-driven process

In response to what the Group perceived as attempts to create "silos" and a "divide-and-rule" process, the ACP Group proposed "a Member-driven, provision-by-provision implementation stocktake through the relevant WTO bodies, coordinated by the CTD under General Council oversight."

The Group explained that "this will map concerns, examine existing provisions, identify gaps and review available support," suggesting that they "can build on existing Secretariat inventories and Member inputs" to enable recording the legal basis and objective, actual utilisation, implementation constraints, assistance provided and development effects.

The underlying "purpose is to identify what works, what impedes use and what practical response is needed, while avoiding duplication," the Group told the facilitator.

They added that "the stocktake must preserve the CTD Special Session's negotiating mandate, including outstanding G90 Agreement-specific proposals."

Past mandates

The Group argued that "members should agree a transparent sequence for unresolved development work. Doha, Bali and Nairobi mandates and outcomes should be given practical effect, without reopening or displacing them."

Crucially, the Group insisted that "Agriculture, cotton and LDC issues must remain in their competent processes."

"For individual ACP Group Members," the ACP Coordinator said, "this (reform) should create space to bring concrete cases: a procedural obstacle to using a development flexibility; a constraint on agricultural support or food security; a technology-transfer need; or a certification requirement that prevents value-added exports."

He further noted that "a Member can identify the provision, obstacle, assistance need, remedy sought and responsible body," emphasising that "factual Secretariat assistance can help prepare these cases without creating new reporting burdens."

However, he cautioned that "National experiences should inform the work without being treated as changes to the Group's collective position."

Underscoring that "information on needs and capacity may guide assistance and implementation support," the Group advocated for "taking account of diverse and evolving trade-related needs irrespective of income status."

They warned the facilitator that such information "must not be re-purposed into criteria for developing-country status, eligibility conditions for SDT, compulsory graduation or loss of negotiated rights", noting that "existing Agreement-specific arrangements are not a basis for general eligibility tests."

The ACP Group conveyed unmistakably that "a voluntary opt-out belongs to the developing Member concerned, must be Agreement-specific and must not affect status or rights elsewhere or create a precedent for others."

Therefore, "Part IV of GATT, including Article XXXVI:8 and its interpretative note on non-reciprocity, should inform discussions on reciprocity and market access."

Conclusion

Asserting their readiness to collaborate, ACP members said they "are ready to contribute as a Group," adding that the "ACP Group Geneva has a reputation for convergence building and bridge building, consistent with the expectation of our members."

Against this backdrop, the ACP Group stated that "the next step should connect each development obstacle to a practical response in the competent body and provide a genuine opportunity for discussion across the membership."

In crux, "development must inform all four reform tracks, while Members retain control of mandates, sequencing and decisions."

The Group reminded the facilitator, a former WTO and IMF official, that "development cuts across all of the tracks and we have proposals in those tracks as well, independent of our proposals under the development track." +