RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/CTD/M/11
23 December 2002
(02-7059)
Committee on Trade and Development
Eleventh Special Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 12 NOVEMBER 2002
Chairman:  H.E. Mr Ransford Smith (Jamaica)
A. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA
1. The Chairman stated that the draft agenda for the meeting was contained in
airgram WTO/AIR/1949 of 28 October 2002.  He indicated that since the airgram had been issued
three submissions had been received, by Canada, the African Group and the United States, and that
they had been circulated as documents TN/CTD/W/17, TN/CTD/W/18 and TN/CTD/W/19,
respectively.  If time so permitted he would allow delegations to briefly introduce them.  With those
remarks he proposed the agenda for adoption.
2. The agenda was so adopted.
B. AGREEMENT SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
3. The Chairman said that as indicated in the Agenda, it was intended to take up proposals
relating to the Understanding on Rules and Procedur es Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).
These were contained in three papers, viz.:  (a) TN/CTD/W/2, submitted jointly by Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Egypt, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mauritius, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania andZimbabwe, addressing Article 12.10 of the DSU;  (b) TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2, submitted by the African
Group, addressing Articles 4.10, 8.10, 12.10, 12.11, 21, 24.1 and 27.2 of the DSU; and
(c) TN/CTD/W/6, submitted by India, which contained proposals in respect of Articles 4.10 and 21.2
of the DSU.  He suggested that given the time available Members make comments on any or all of the
proposals together, when they took the floor.
4. The representative of the European Communities welcomed developing country Members in
their collective effort towards improving the DSU by  putting forth proposals.  He, however, noted that
amendments to the DSU were subject to a specific exercise in the Special Session of the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), and his delegation believed  that discussions should be mainly carried out in
that forum , although they were ready to discuss the issue in all appropriate fora.
5. The representative of Kenya recalled that the purpose of the exercise in the Special Session of
the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) was to look at the existing Special and Differential
(S&D) treatment provisions in the DSU and to make them effective and operational, and not to
necessarily amend the DSU.  He therefore sought clarification from the representative of the European
Communities about suggesting that the discussions be carried out in the DSB.
6. The representative of Pakistan said that the exercise of negotiations on improvements and
clarifications of the DSU as envisaged in paragraph 30 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, was
different from the exercise that was being conducted in the Special Session of the CTD.  The latter
consisted in examining how S&D provisions could be strengthened and made more precise, effective
and operational.  For that reason it was important to consider the proposals in the Special Session of
the CTD, rather than within the broader discussions underway in the Special Session of the DSB.  HeTN/CTD/M/11
Page 2
also said that his delegation had made specific proposals on S&D in the DSU, and urged Members to
engage constructively to find meaningful solutions to those proposals.
7. The representative of Chile thanked the representatives of Kenya and Pakistan for the
clarifications they had provided about the difference between the exercise undertaken in the Special
Session of the CTD and that underway in the Special Session of the DSB.  He, however, felt that even
if the mandates of the two bodies were different, the proposals submitted to the two were quite
similar.  He therefore asked which was the appropriate forum  to discuss the proposals, especially since
having the same issue discussed in two different fora posed difficulties to small delegations like his.
8. The representative of the European Communities clarified that his delegation was ready to
discuss the issue both in the Special Session of the CTD and in the Special Session of the DSB, where
to the best of his knowledge the proposals tabled for that meeting's consideration, had also been
mostly incorporated in the checklist of issues a nd in the compiled version of proposals in the DSB.
He agreed that in the Special Session of the CTD there was a stronger focus on developing country
issues, but noted that they were discussing the treatment of developing country Members in the DSB
also.  He did not want to engage in a pr olonged discussion about the most appropriate forum :
discussion could go on in both fora.  He noted, however, that in case an amendment to the DSU were
necessary, then his delegation believed that it would need to be discussed in the Special Session of theDSB.
9. The representative of the United States said that his delegation believed it was important to
consider the impact of any proposal on the fact that the dispute settlement system applied transparent
rules in a timely and even-handed manner.  His delegation noted the increased use of the dispute
settlement system by developing country Members, and assumed it was important to retain thebenefits that the DSU provided to developing country Members in the WTO.  His delegation believed
that the capacity of developing country Members should be taken into account as part of the dispute
resolution process, and the best way of doing so was on a case-by-case basis.  His delegation was
ready to exchange views on that, but believed that the mandate and exercise of the Special Session of
the DSB had to be respected.  The proposals recently tabled in the DSB Special Session by India andthe African Group were helpful, and appeared to reflect some evolution in thinking.  However, it
would be difficult to consider proposals in isolat ion, since any change to one part of the dispute
settlement process could affect other parts of that process.  He stressed that an important objective of
the dispute settlement discussions was to ensure timely results:  it was therefore important to see how
one could take the special needs of developing country Members into account whilst at the same time
making sure that that goal was achieved in a timely manner.
10. The representative of Mexico was in favour of constructive discussions in the Special Session
of the CTD.  He was, however, concerned that the conclusions reached in the Special Session of the
DSB and in the Special Session of the CTD could be conflicting or even inconsistent with each other.
It was therefore necessary to coordinate the two exercises.  Discussions in the Special Session of the
DSB had until then been constructive, especially as they had had the benefit of the presence of experts
in the field: that could be an indication about which was the most appropriate forum  for that
discussion.  At the same time it was important to take into account the capacity constraints faced by
many Members, and to decide on how to proceed accordingly.
11. The representative of Paraguay associated himself with those representatives who had voiced
their concerns about the possible overlap of the work of the Special Session of the CTD and the
Special Session of the DSB.  He noted that proposals tabled in the Special Session of the DSB alsoaddressed S&D treatment.  He expressed concern that not only the conclusions, but also the timing of
the conclusions in the two bodies could differ.  There was a risk that one body reached conclusions
that could no longer be reflected in those already reached in the other body.  His delegation supported
the initiatives taken within the framework of the S&D work programme, but noted that smallTN/CTD/M/11
Page 3
delegations would be most affected by the same discussions taking place in two WTO bodies at the
same time.
12. The representative of Thailand joined the represen tatives of the United States in noting that it
was important to look at the proposals as a whole.  His delegation had clearly stated its support for
amendments to the DSU which would cover developing country Members' concerns.  His delegationssupported the proposal contained in TN/CTD/W/2 since it specifically concerned the extension of
time periods to allow developing country Members to engage actively in the dispute settlement
mechanism.  He expressed some concerns on the African Group proposal on Article 4.10, that "in
consultations, requests by developing and least-developed country Members to be involved shall
always be accepted", since his delegation did not know what exactly were the grounds for making
such a proposal.  He therefore sought clarification from the African Group.
13. The representative of Nicaragua noted that the work in the CTD and that of the on-going
negotiations for amending the DSU could not be looked at "in a divorced manner".  He also believed
that any overlapping of this work would be inappropriate.  A large number of proposals had already
been tabled in the Special Session of the DSB.  His delegation attached the utmost importance to all
issues related to S&D treatment, and in particular to those related to dispute settlement.  Pursuant to
the Doha Ministerial Declaration, and particularly to its paragraph 47, negotiations on improvementsand clarifications of the DSB were not part of the single undertaking, as were the remaining
negotiations.  His delegation therefore believed that although the tentative time-limit for completing
negotiations was 1 January 2005, the DSB was not bound by that deadline.  As a consequence, it was
necessary to identify what forms of S&D treatment could be applied immediately to the DSB as it
existed, with the understanding that the measures  taken would then be adapted to the new DSB
whenever it would come into being.
14. The Chairman reminded Members that the issue of discussions in the Special Session of the
CTD overlapping with that in other bodies had been already discussed and had been taken into
account in the decision adopted in July 2002, which had mandated that the Special Session of the
CTD utilize, as appropriate, the expertise available in other WTO bodies and negotiating groups.  Hetherefore urged Members to address the proposals that some Members had tabled for the
consideration of the Special Session of the CTD, since the fact that the proposals were on the table
meant that the proponents felt that they were consistent with the mandate of the Special Session of the
CTD.
15. The representative of Canada said that his delegation did not view the Special Session of the
CTD as a negotiating forum  and believed that to the extent that changes to the existing S&D
provisions were envisaged they should be discussed in the appropriate negotiating  fora.  He noted
that several proposals on S&D treatment in the DSU had been submitted by developing countries in
the Special Session of the DSB, and believed that for the sake of efficiency and coherence, discussion
of such proposals should be undertaken in that forum .  However, his delegation had some specific
comments to make on the proposals that were tabled.  He sought clarification on the proposal by India
on Article 4.10 of the DSU, contained in TN/CTD/W/6.  He said that the proposal appeared to imposenew obligations on Members, without giving sufficient clarity on the intended scope thereof,
especially regarding the basis on which a Panel would make an assessment as to whether a developed
country Member had given special attention to the particular problems and interests of developing
country Members party to the dispute.  He did not see any need to improve the operation of Article
21.2 as proposed by India, nor did he see how th e proposed change would accomplish anything;  he
noted that in the past arbitrators had taken Article 21.2 into account in determining the reasonable
period of time.  He added that, since developing country Members were not all at the same stage of
development, a one-size-fits-all solution in terms of the reasonable period of time might not be
appropriate.TN/CTD/M/11
Page 4
16. The representative of New Zealand noted that many proposals had been submitted into the
Special Session of the DSB, and said his delegation would provide more detailed comments on those
proposals in that forum .  His delegation recognized the strains that the dispute settlement process
placed on limited resources, and the importance of having a dispute settlement process that was
accessible to all Members.  At the same time his delegation believed that S&D treatment should notbe considered as an end in itself.  All S&D treatment proposals should be considered individually on
their merit, so as to ensure that they proposed solutions that would effectively address the problems
identified, in a way that would not undermine the objectives of the DSU.  It was important to examine
the existing provisions and ensure that any changes would add value to the existing rules.
17. The representative of Bulgaria said his delegation had a positive attitude towards the
operationalization of S&D provisions.  He noted, however, that dispute settlement was a very
sensitive area. In substance his delegation was prepared to look favourably at all proposals.  However,he wanted to recall the well-accepted principle of equality of parties in judicial proceedings:  in that
connection proposals to make S&D provisions in the DSU mandatory had to be looked at carefully.
His delegation was concerned about the terminology used in the proposals, i.e. the categories of
"developed" and "developing" country Members.  He noted that in the absence of a definition of a
developing country, Bulgaria could be confronted in a case with a Member which claimed to be a
developing country Member, but was actually richer , bigger, had better administrative services and
was better versed in WTO matters.  In such a scenario the procedural equality of the parties in dispute
settlement in the WTO would not be ensured.  His delegation could therefore not accept differential
treatment based on an undefined category of "developing" and "developed" country Members.  On the
contrary, he had no objection to the proposals relating to the LDCs, since the latter was a clearlydefined category.
18. The representative of Colombia noted the importance of retaining S&D treatment under the
DSU.  Her delegation believed it was fundamental to improve the capacities of developing country
Members facing disputes.  The proposals on Article 27.2, especially that made by the African Group,
were important.
19. The representative of Switzerland said his delegation took serious consideration of the
concerns expressed and was willing to look in detail at the proposals, and to contribute towards
finding an appropriate solution.  He agreed that there was a need to provide additional technical
assistance (TA) to developing country Members and the Advisory Centre on WTO Law had an
important role to play in that context.  Experience  with the existing system had demonstrated that it
could be difficult for developing country Members to enforce a Panel decision against a developed
country Member.  A proposal had been made about providing additional remedies to developingcountries, such as compensation.  That was, however, a complicated issue, which would raise
questions such as what the form compensation shou ld take, and of consistency between compensation
and the MFN principle.  He felt that the Special Session of the DSB would be a more appropriate
forum  to deal with those detailed questions.  Some proposals also seemed to go too far:  a general
extension of time-limits for developing country Members, for instance, would prolong the disputesettlement procedure even in cases where that was not justified.  His delegation preferred solutions
allowing for more flexibility according to the specif ic situation.  Extension of time-limits could be a
problem, especially during the implementation of Panel decisions.  He also stressed that not all
developing country Members faced the same problems.  It was therefore important to differentiate
between the more and less developed countries, possibly enlarging the group of LDCs, based on a setof clear and transparent criteria.
20. The representative of Mexico reiterated his delegation's position that discussing graduation of
developing countries did not fall within the mandate laid out in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  He
said that it would be wrong to presume that Members like Mexico did not need S&D treatment
provisions.  Mexico, for instance, was characterized by important gaps between its various regions interms of economic development.  Because of that, the number of Mexicans who, according to officialTN/CTD/M/11
Page 5
estimates, were living in poverty (53 millions), and the number of Mexicans living in the
municipalities suffering from the greatest economic and infrastructural problems (26.6 millions)
equalled the population of many countries.  That was why Members like Mexico still needed S&D
treatment in many areas.  There were three categories of Members in the WTO legal system –
developed, developing and least-developed country Members; identifying new categories fell outsidethe mandate of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and discussing that would only delay progress on
Agreement-specific proposals.
21. The representative of Argentina said that since S&D provisions in the dispute settlement
system were very important his delegation was open to discussing them in the Special Session of the
CTD.  However, he recalled the process underway in the Special Session of the DSB and said that
since various proposals that entailed amendments to the DSU were under consideration in both
bodies, there would at some stage need to be a convergence of the two processes.  S&D treatmentprovisions needed to be looked at as a whole within the context of the DSU.  His delegation regarded
the discussions on how to make S&D treatment pr ovisions operational as very important.  The
proposal to clarify Article 21.2 of the DSU, for instance, was very interesting: additional guidance
was needed to make it operational.  He went on to say that the Special Session of the CTD was not the
appropriate forum  to discuss graduation:  Members were there to examine how existing S&D
provisions of the DSU could be made more effective and operational.  Taking up discussions on
graduation would prevent them from reaching any conclusion on those issues.
22. The representative of Australia said that her delegation was willing to discuss the proposals in
the Special Session of the CTD, in addition to the work going on in the Special Session of the DSB.
S&D treatment was an important part of the DSU review process.  Like Canada, her delegationremained cautious about the introduction of prescriptive time-frames for developed and developing
country Members, given that the experience and expertise of those Members varied considerably, as
did therefore their ability to comply with time-fram es;  her comments referred in particular to the
proposal contained in document TN/CTD/W/2.  Her delegation agreed that developing and
least-developed country Members needed further legal assistance in dispute settlement, but it wasnecessary to think further about how such assist ance could be provided in a transparent and fair
manner.  She also expressed the view that real benefits would stem from determinations taking place
on a case-by-case basis.  In relation to the proposal by the African Group on Article 4.10 of the DSU,
her delegation had some difficulty in mandatorily accepting developing and least-developed country
Members' requests to be involved:  participation should rather depend on substantial interest in a
dispute.  Her delegation was interested in further discussing the second part of that proposal, but had
concerns about any extension of prescribed time periods.  With regard to the African Group's proposalon Article 8.10, her delegation believed that appointment of panellists should be based on expertise,
and not on national origin.  In respect of the African's Group proposal on Article 12.10 of the DSU,
she saw value in that determination being made on a case by case basis.  Her delegation was in favour
of further discussing the proposal on the interpretation of the requirement for "continued impartiality
of the Secretariat" in Article 27.2 of the DSU, but those discussions would need to look at theresources that that would require from the Secretariat.  Moving on to the proposal submitted by India
in document TN/CTD/W/6, she associated herself wi th the comments made by the representative of
Canada, and added that her delegation felt that the proposal of changing "should" into "shall" in
Articles 4.10 and 21.2 of the DSU could be further discussed.  Concerning the proposal contained in
paragraph 16(c) of document TN/CTD/W/6, she reiterated the view that time-frames needed to bedetermined on case by case basis, due to different capacities of developing country Members.
23. The representative of Jamaica supported the aim of the proposals on Article 12.10, contained
in TN/CTD/W2 and TN/CTD/W/3Rev.2, which was to bring clarity and precision to the operation of
the Article in respect of time-frames for consultations involving developing country Members.  Her
delegation also shared the concerns raised in TN /CTD/W/6 and TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2, that all stages of
dispute settlement proceedings, including consultations and especially Panel rulings, should take into
account particular problems, circumstances and interests of developing country Members.  HerTN/CTD/M/11
Page 6
delegation supported the proposal regarding the composition of the Panels as contained in
TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2.  In respect to the proposal on compensation in paragraph 88 of the same
document, her delegation agreed that alternative forms of compensation should be explored.  Her
delegation also shared the concern on the role of and advisory service provided by the WTO
Secretariat: the level of service being provided was limited.
24. The representative of Norway noted that the proposals they were discussing were somewhat
similar to those being considered in the Special Se ssion of the DSB and were being discussed in detail
therein.  Her delegation understood the need for developing country Members to be fully involved in
the multilateral trading system and the need for reviewing S&D provisions as stated in the Doha
Ministerial Declaration.  Her delegation did not, however, think that special procedural rules for
developing country Members would benefit the dispute settlement system, especially in cases which
had both developed and developing country Members as complainants.  That could lead to furtherdelays in the already time-consuming cases.  Her delegation could look further into the proposal on
Article 4.10 by the African Group and could also support the proposal on Article 8.10, which she
believed reflected the existing practice.  The proposals on Article 21.2, 7 and 8 were complicated, and
would require a number of clarifications.  With respect to the proposal made in connection with
Article 27.2, that a qualified legal expert from the WTO should be made available to assist developingcountry Members in disputes, her delegation understood developing country Members' need for TA,
especially since experience had shown that WTO cases were time-consuming, and required a high
level of expertise.  But the proposals were not necessarily the way forward, since the Secretariat might
not be in the most appropriate position for providing such technical assistance.  She sought
information from developing country Members on their experience with the TA provided by theSecretariat and the Advisory Centre on WTO Law.  She noted that the proposal by India on
Article 4.10 was similar to the one by the African Group and her delegation could consider it further.
25. The representative of Bulgaria reiterated that a clear definition of the beneficiaries of S&D
treatment was at the core of the mandate on S&D treatment, and therefore disagreed with those
delegates who had said that looking at the definition of developing countries did not fall within thatmandate.  S&D provisions could not be made more operational or mandatory without such a
definition.  By not defining the holders of the rights and privileges, one undermined the very legal
system from which those rights and privileges were being derived.  The definition of the beneficiaries
of S&D was a general issue, but since it had not been possible to discuss it as such, his delegation had
to raise it in relation to the individual proposals and provisions.  His delegation was not seeking to
exclude certain Members, but was only seeking to know who the beneficiaries of S&D treatment
would be.
26. The representative of Paraguay said that the difference between developed, developing and
least-developed country Members already existed in the DSU.  He objected to the proposal by the
African Group that in disputes between a developing country Member and a developed country
Member there should always be a panellist from a developing country Member:  that would pose a
problem in case no expert from a developing country Member could be found.  With respect to theproposals by the African Group on Article 12.10, he asked whether "all parties involved in the
consultations" was meant to include even those associated as third parties.  He also asked what was
the maximum time-period the proponents envisaged for the purposes of "sufficient time for the
developing country Member to prepare and present its argumentation", since the proposal only
seemed to envisage a minimum time-period.  He also asked the proponents how they envisaged theirproposal on Article 24.1 to be operationalized, given the fact that in the DSU there was no provision
for incidents of special and previous ruling, which was more or less what the proposal spoke about,
since it envisaged a procedure to intervene between the establishment of the Panel  and the parties'
submission.
27. The representative of the United States said that he was sceptical about the need to mandate
longer consultations procedures.  He noted that when developing country Members were involved,TN/CTD/M/11
Page 7
consultation time-periods – as well as other stages of the process - had at times been prolonged.  He
also noted that some Members had suggested that  the existing 60 days time-period for consultations
was not the most efficient way of using time, since some of that time could actually be made use of
later on in the process.  With respect to the proposal concerning involvement of third parties in
consultations he said it was important, when considering changes to the rules on consultations, toensure that there remained sufficient flexibility to allow the parties to the dispute to resolve that
dispute.  Moving on to the proposals on the Panel phase of the proceedings, he expressed concern
about extending the prescribed time frames, since th at would run counter to the objective of making
the process more timely.  Like Paraguay, he noted that requesting that one of the panellists should be
from a developing country was already a prerogative of developing country Members.  With respect
to the proposal that Panel reports address S&D provisions and developing country Members' interests,
he said that the task of a Panel was to resolve disputes over whether specified measures wereconsistent with the defending Members' obligations, and it would be unwise to distract from that
focus.  Commenting on the proposal by India on the definition of the "reasonable period of time" in
connection with Article 21.2, his delegation believed that a mandatory one-size-fits-all time period
was not desirable.  Finally, with respect to the African Group's proposal on Article 27.2, his
delegation believed that it was essential that the credibility of the dispute settlement system bepreserved and that it should be perceived as fair and impartial.  Inasmuch as the Secretariat was
involved in staffing Panels, it may be difficult for it to assist any party, as had been proposed, as this
might lead to a conflict of interests.
28. The representative of the European Communities said his delegation was open to discussing
ways to improve Article 4.10, but flexibility in the consultations should be preserved, since rigid
criteria could be a limiting factor, in the case-by-case approach.  His delegation could consider India's
proposal to change "should" into "shall" in Article 4.10, and noted that the European Communities
had made a similar proposal I the DSB.  Concerning Article 8.10, he did not understand the rationale
for the proposed amendment, since that would mean that at least one panellist be necessarily from a
developing country even if the developing country Member party to the dispute may not have sorequested.  Developing country Members already enjoyed the right to see their request in that respect
satisfied, and the justification of the proposal was therefore unclear.  The proposals for setting
minimum time periods for consultations were a good example of the complexity of the issue and of
the need of considering it within the overall context of the dispute settlement system.  His delegation
could look at specific deadlines, provided they did not lead to excessive delays, but that had to be
done within the framework of the DSU negotiations.  The European Communities could also consider
the proposal by India to change "should" into "shall" in Article 21.2.  India had further proposed thatan obligation be introduced for the Panel or the Appellate Body to explicitly interpret the phrase
"matters affecting the interests of developing country Members" as an overarching provision in all
disputes involving developing country Members as a party:  the European Communities believed that
that required further discussion, since the matter subject to the dispute should be the central element
on which the Panel and the Appellate Body should concentrate.  Turning to the implementation stage,he noted that the proposals made by the African Group in relation to Article 21.2, 21.7 and 21.8,
sought to introduce rather new concepts, those of monetary compensation and collective suspension
of obligations, the discussion of which could not be isolated from the overall examination underway
in the Special Session of the DSB.  In relation to the African Group's proposal on Article 24.1, his
delegation was ready to discuss the point but believed that it was not desirable to legally limit theadmissibility of Panel requests.  He also noted that some of the elements of the proposal dealt with the
implementation phase of the proceedings, whilst Article 24.1 only related to the preceeding phase.
With respect to Article 27.2, he said that his delegation had an open mind on the provision of legal
assistance from the WTO Secretariat to developing country Members in the disputes, but believed that
the proposal to define "continued impartiality of the Secretariat" should be further discussed.
29. The representative of Hungary said that they were ready to examine all proposals on S&D
provisions on their individual merits, but shared the view that negotiations on any possible
modification of the DSU should only be undertaken in  the Special Session of the DSB, since some ofTN/CTD/M/11
Page 8
the proposals could change the overall balance of rights and obligations under the DSU.  Her
delegation would prefer flexibility to be granted to developing country Members when possible,
rather than the establishment of a permanent two-tier system.  Paraguay had raised interesting
questions on the African Group's submission, and her delegation would look forward to a more
detailed discussion on the proposals by the African Group as well as on the other proposals.
30. The representative of Kenya expressed his appreciation for some of the comments that had
been made.  He said that some of the questions needed reflection, and asked for them to be provided
in writing.  He clarified that the African Gro up had proposed that developing country Members be
necessarily allowed to participate in consultations, because that would help them build capacity in that
respect.  His delegation would provide detailed an swers concerning the questions on the composition
of Panels.  He indicated their intention to consult with the delegation of Paraguay so as to be in a
position to clarify the points that had been made.  He said that they had proposed monetarycompensation and collective retaliation bearing in mind that the existing remedies were not adequate
for weaker Members, and taking for instance into account the situation of Members which were single
commodity exporters.  With respect to Article 24.1, his delegation would also provide responses to
the clarifications which had been sought.  He noted the stated openness to discuss Article 27.2, and
said that as a consequence he was looking forward to a decision in that respect.  Information had beensought as to developing country Members' experience with the legal assistance provided by the
Secretariat and the Advisory Centre on WTO Law;  he noted that the latter was not open to all
Members, and also that a fee had to be paid for it.  He added that since the Centre had only been
established recently, they did not have enough experience to provide the requested information.  It
was difficult for African Members to report on experience with TA received in the dispute settlementproceedings, since they had hardly been involved in any dispute.
31. The representative of India reiterated the mandate contained in the Doha Ministerial
Declaration in response to the doubts raised about the Special Session being the appropriate forum  for
discussing proposals on S&D treatment in the DSU.  Responding to the comments about equality
before the judiciary and law, he noted that treating unequal Members on an equal footing could leadto miscarriage of justice.  He said that unclarif ied flexibility often meant uncertainty for developing
country Members:  they did not want to depend on the consent of other delegations to be able to
benefit from S&D treatment, and gave the example of  a very sensitive case in which India had been
allowed only ten additional days to make its submission to the Panel instead of the 22 days it had
requested, pursuant to Article 12.10.  He acknowledged that the European Communities had
submitted a proposal similar to theirs of changing "should" into "shall" in the Special Session of the
DSB, and noted that in fact mandatory language was already contained in the Spanish version of theunderstanding.  He requested delegations to provide their questions in writing, and said they were also
ready to engage in informal consultations.
32. The representative of Pakistan agreed that there was a certain overlap between the work in the
Special Session of the CTD and the Special Session of the DSB, and that the work of the Special
Session of the CTD could benefit from the work being done in other fora, especially in fulfilling its
time-bound mandate.  He was therefore of the view that as much progress as possible should be made
in the Special Session of the CTD, and then if necessary those results could be drafted  into other
relevant forum .  Responding to the representative of Canada, he said his delegation believed that the
Special Session of the CTD was a negotiating body and that that was why it was called a "Special
Session", and it had been created under the Trade Negotiations Committee.  He agreed that thedefinition of the beneficiaries of S&D treatment was an important issue, but said that entering into
that discussion would cause the Special Session to miss out on its second deadline of December 2002.
That issue could be taken up within the broader discussion of the Framework Agreement that a group
of developing country Members had submitted just before the Doha Ministerial Conference.
Responding to other comments, he said that procedural flexibility in the DSU would be of only some,advantage to developing country Members.  Unless there was a specific requirement that Panels takeTN/CTD/M/11
Page 9
account of the substantive S&D provisions, procedural flexibility by its own would not be of any
advantage to developing country Members.
33. The Chairman noted that some general comments had been made, as well as some more
detailed responses to some of the Agreement-specific proposals.  In some cases some receptive
comments had been made, in other cases some relevant questions had been asked.  That had to betaken into consideration whilst endeavouring to meet the mandate of the Special Session of the CTD.
He then offered the floor to Canada, Kenya and the United States, for them to briefly introduce the
submissions they had made since the Tenth Special Session of the CTD, for Members to be in a
position to take those submissions into account.
34. The representative of the United States  introduced the submission his delegation had made,
which had been circulated as document TN/CTD/W/19, saying that it laid out ideas on the Monitoring
Mechanism, building on the proposal made by the African Group and her delegation's presentation inJune 2002, as well as on some ideas put forth by Switzerland in its submission.
35. The representative of Kenya introduced the s ubmission made by the African Group, which
had been circulated as document TN/CTD/W/18.  That submission contained responses to the two
questions raised by Switzerland on the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994.
36. The representative of Canada introduced her delegation's submission, which had been
circulated as document TN/CTD/W/17.  That proposal was a re-issue of a document which had been
issued in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) as G/SPS/W/127, and
addressed ways to simplify the notifications procedures so as to enhance transparency of S&D
treatment within the SPS Agreement.
37. The Chairman welcomed the active participation of Members and the useful contributions
that had been made.  With those comments the meeting was closed.
__________