RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/C/M/7
29 April 2003
(03-2242)
Trade Negotiations Committee
4 March 2003
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 4 March 2003
Chairman: Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi (Director-General)
Subjects discussed:
1. Reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC
2. Outstanding implementation issues – (paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration) – Report by the Chairman
1. Reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC
1. The Chairman introduced the reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC.
These reports had been circulated in the following official documents:
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body: TN/DS/6
Special Session of the Council for TRIPS: TN/IP/5
Negotiating Group on Market Access: TN/MA/8Negotiating Group on Rules: TN/RL/4
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment: TN/TE/5
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development: TN/CTD/8
2. He noted his understanding that this last report was without prejudice to the position of any
Member on the nature of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development.  He also
noted that reports by the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture and the Special Session of
the Council for Trade in Services had not been  issued because these bodies had recently held
meetings.
3. In his assessment, the overall situation in the negotiations was not reassuring.  Missed
deadlines, entrenched positions on key issues and a lack of real engagement had combined to bring
the Round to a very serious point.  Time was passing quickly, and there were just six months before
Cancún.  There was an urgent need for more effective political guidance and leadership in order to
break out of the deadlock on key issues and restore the momentum of the negotiations.
4. At the present, participants were also facing a very difficult moment on a core area of the
Round, namely agriculture.  This had been made more difficult by the lack of any significant
movement towards convergence among key players.  And other deadlines were pressing in on
participants, in tariffs, services and dispute settlement.  The work was facing imminent gridlock,
unless negotiators moved urgently to avoid it.TN/C/M/7
Page 2
5. This was what he had been telling Ministers in the past few weeks.  He had also told them
that delegations in Geneva needed positive signals of their willingness to seek compromise, so as to
be able to remove the obstacles that ware blocking the road to Cancún.  He had urged them to review
their instructions to delegations accordingly, a nd he hoped that the present meeting would provide
evidence that this was now happening.  He would not repeat what he had said before about whatfailure at Cancún would mean, but he urged all delegations to reflect deeply on how to avoid it.
6. Ambassador Balás (Hungary), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement
Body, said his group had met once since the last meeting of the TNC to continue the discussion of
specific draft texts submitted by participants.  The Special Session was guided by a "Spring deadline,"
as it was aiming to complete its work within the next three months.  The immediate challenge was to
complete the examination of the draft texts submitted by Members.  A good number of proposals had
been reviewed in the first two meetings this year, and the group would continue this work the
following week with a view to completing it.  The discussions had been constructive in many
respects, and it had been a positive development that, in their textual proposals, a number of
proponents had taken into account the comments made by others in the course of earlier discussions
and adjusted their proposals accordingly.  This had allowed more progress towards convergence.
7. However, he drew attention to the need for proposals to be submitted in sufficient time so that
meaningful discussions could take place.  He was grateful for the proposals received, but some key
proposals were still outstanding.  This effort needed to be pursued actively in the discussion of the
proposed text.  He was concerned that on certain issues, the discussions were not as complete as
possible because not all interested delegations had been represented at the meetings.  He fully
appreciated the constraints faced by smaller and developing country delegations, but still saw activeengagement as extremely important to complete this phase of the work.
8. He hoped that the Special Session meeting the following week would provide further clarity
on issues that had yet to be discussed in the form of draft texts.  Nonetheless, at this stage it was clear
that significant differences continued to exist on the views and priorities of various participants.  In
his view, the greatly different levels of ambition from participants were comparable to thenegotiations on agriculture.  While it was true that on a number of issues there was a high level of
Member support, it was not sufficient for an agreed outcome.  Some wanted a very substantial
outcome on solutions and a level of understanding w ould have to be reached regarding the level of
ambition.  In this respect, he noted that a number of proposals submitted to the Special Session
reflected similar objectives, and their texts were similar,  but not identical.  In order to facilitate further
work, he again urged proponents of like minded proposals to coordinate among themselves to reduce
the differences between their proposals.
9. More generally, although a degree of convergence was perceptible on some issues, such
convergence could not easily be disassociated from the broader divergences among participants to
arrive at an agreement by May, so reducing these differences would be the key focus of the last stretch
of work until May.
10. Ambassador Chung (Korea), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS, said
he did not have much to add to what was already contained in his written report.  His group had had
useful discussions at its 21 February meeting on the basis of the Secretariat's compilation of issues
and points relating to the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of
geographical indications for wines and spirits.  It had been encouraging that the discussions had
pointed to some possible common ground on certain procedural issues, yet the discussions had alsorevealed that positions on issues such as opposition, legal effects of registration and participation
remained quite divided.  Bridging the differences would require hard work as well as flexibility from
all participants.  In this light, starting this week  he intended to have intensive consultations with
delegations in various formats and, as he had indicated on previous occasions, his door was always
open for bilateral consultations.  He hoped that the consultations in the coming weeks would lead to
building common ground for drafting a negotiating text well before the Special Session's next meetingTN/C/M/7
Page 3
on 24 April.  While he understood the concerns of some Members about introducing such a text
prematurely, there had to be an awareness of the tight time-frame of the Cancún Ministerial
Conference for concluding of the negotiations.  Given the urgency of the situation, it was his firm
belief that the negotiations had to be moved into high gear.
11. Ambassador Girard (Switzerland), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access,
said a formal meeting of the Group had taken place on 19-21 February and document TN/MA/8
provided a factual summary of what had taken place.  He was very encouraged with the evolution of
the discussions in the Group and the extent and intensity of the participation by delegations.  In fact,
the three-day session had been very interactive and he thanked all delegations for having done the
hard work required to engage in the discussions.  Tariffs and non-tariff barriers were part and parcel
of the same negotiations, but for the purpose of his report he would consider each subject separately.
12. On tariffs, many more proposals on modalities had been received since the Group's last
meeting in December 2002 and more had been promised.  All proposals submitted by 14 March
would be taken into account in an updated versi on of the paper entitled "Overview of Proposals
Submitted".  He sensed from the discussions that there appeared to be a leaning, on the part of many
participants, towards the use of a formula.  This time the discussion on modalities for negotiations on
tariffs had taken place on an issue-by-issue basis and it had been very useful in that it clarified whereconvergence could be possible on certain items relating to modalities for the tariff negotiations.
Unfortunately, the Group had run out of time and was unable to cover all the points, but he intended
to come back to the remaining ones at the next m eeting and to revisit some issues on which a further
exchange of views would be useful.
13. He had found the Group's discussion on non-tariff barriers particularly productive, as it had
been clear that the subject of non-tariff barriers was no less important than that of tariffs, as
recognized in the Doha Declaration.  However, past discussions on non-tariff barriers had been rather
general and lacking in direction, but some progress had taken place at this meeting.  There had been a
more focussed discussion and suggestions had been put forward as to how the Group should discharge
its responsibility regarding this part of its mandate.  Participants might have been assisted in part dueto the exercise of identification and notification of non-tariff barriers that they had undertaken
pursuant to his request.  While the notifications were not numerous, they represented a good sample
of the types of measures that exporters perceived as constituting non-tariff barriers.  In addition, a few
participants, either in written or oral statements, had put forward ideas or concrete proposals on
modalities for negotiations on non-tariff barriers which had been a very useful input to this process.
The Group had agreed that, in light of the 31 May target date for agreement on modalities, it would be
useful to also have a target date for the submission of additional proposals on modalities for NTBs,and had agreed to the date of 14 March.
14. He wished to thank the Secretariat for the technical assistance workshop it organized on 21
February to provide more explanations for its paper, "Formula Approaches to Tariff Negotiations"
(TN/MA/S/3/Rev.1/Add.1), which demonstrated in a hypothetical tariff profile and to the extent
possible, the effects of the various proposed form ulas.  Such sessions were useful and would be
pursued in the future.  He wished to urge all delegations whose information was not up to date to
make their submissions to the Integrated Data Base, and if that was not possible, to authorise the
Secretariat to source official data from other international agencies until the Members themselves
could report directly to the Secretariat.  He stressed that not having comparable data in the IDB would
seriously affect the capacity of those Members to participate in the negotiations and to make full useof the tools and assistance offered by the Secretariat.  He urged all concerned participants to respond
quickly and positively to his request.  Finally, w ith regard to the third question in the fax sent to
delegations on issues to be discussed during the informal segment of the present meeting, namely:
"Where would additional flexibility in positions be most needed to ensure that the 31 May deadline
for agreement on modalities for the negotiations on market access for non-agricultural products berespected?" he believed that, at this stage in the negotiations, the question was not quite relevant and
somewhat premature.TN/C/M/7
Page 4
15. Ambassador Groser (New Zealand), Chairman of  the Negotiating Group on Rules, shared the
deep concern expressed by the Chairman.  However, he believed that the Rules Group was neither
part of the problem nor part of the solution.  Looking ahead, particularly on the dossier of anti-
dumping, one could be very pessimistic if one were influenced by the past.  When the subsequent
phase of the rules negotiations was reached, participants would have to make a choice, based on othernegotiating groups and events, on whether they wished to be guided by the plain, ordinary and
reasonable meaning of the mandate in paragraph 28.  On RTAs, there had been reasonably substantial
progress in informal discussions and he was hopeful about being able to present a positive report to
Ministers in Cancún.  With respect to the deeply technical and problematic trade remedies issues in
the other part of the mandate, the Group was still at the initial phase, yet he was concerned with
Members' slowness in identifying their positions on subsidies.  With respect to anti-dumping, even
some of the larger delegations were still defining their positions.  Some interesting political signalshad been detected at the senior levels, but these signals had yet to find their way to delegations.
Members had a responsibility to ensure that delegations had fully taken their positions on these issues,
so when the time came to move into the subsequent phase, everyone's position was known and could
be taken into account.
16. Ambassador Biké (Gabon), Chairperson of th e Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Environment (CTE), said that her written report was contained in document TN/TE/5 covering
the 12-13 February meeting of her group.  She was happy to report the practical resolution of the
participation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) Secretariats in the Special Session's
work.  It had been decided to invite representatives of six organisations as well as UNEP to the next
meeting.  The decision had been taken on an ad hoc basis, without prejudice to negotiations underwayin the Special Session, notably under paragraph 31 (ii) of the Doha Declaration and without
prejudging a solution to the question of observer status in the TNC or the General Council.  This was
certainly an important development for the work of the Special Session.  In fact, the negotiating
mandate contained in paragraph 31 had several aspects on which the expertise of MEAs and UNEP
would be essential.
17. The last meeting of the Special Session had allowed important progress to be made in the
negotiations and, in particular, on paragraph 31 (i) of the Doha Declaration.  This paragraph
concerned the link between WTO rules and specific trade obligations contained within the various
MEAs, and it had been agreed in November to focus its discussions on specific trade obligations
contained in the relevant MEAs.  This had enabled the Special Session to move into a more analytical
phase of work.  Delegations had referred to specific provisions of the MEAs to examine which of
them would correspond to the "specific trade obligations" mentioned in the mandate.
18. On the issue of information exchange between the WTO and MEA Secretariats under
paragraph 31(ii), some delegations had taken up suggestions which had been made at the time of the
information session with MEAs on 12 November 2002.  This work should continue, in particular on
possibilities of formalising the current information exchange.  With regard to the question of observer
status for MEAs, discussions had continued.  Work on this issue should focus more on the criteria for
granting observer status, as well as identifying the WTO committees concerned by this mandate.
19. The discussions on paragraph 31(iii), environmental goods and services, had focussed on the
definition and identification of "environmental goods ".  The APEC and OECD lists of environmental
goods had been distributed to delegations.  The discussions had demonstrated the need to take into
account the interests of developing countries in identifying environmental goods for the purposes ofthis mandate.  The group had also agreed its 2003 schedule of meetings, and it would be holding two
more meetings before Cancún on 1-2 May and 8 July.
20. The question of technical assistance in the context of negotiations had also been raised by
several developing countries, in particular the need for financial support to enable them to participate
in the group's discussions.  This issue had already been raised previously, but several participantscontinued to believe that this issue should be addressed.  She was pleased at the more activeTN/C/M/7
Page 5
participation in the group's work and the presence for the first time of representatives from MEA and
UNEP secretariats, which would enrich the discussions.
21. Ambassador Smith (Jamaica), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Development, recalled that at the February TNC, he had indicated that the Fifteenth Special
Session of the CTD would be held immediately prior to the General Council meeting on 10-11
February 2003 to consider the report to the General Council and take decisions on any
recommendations made to it, and on the further work of the Special Session.  The Fifteenth Special
Session of the CTD had met on 6, 7 and 10 February, and had adopted the report to the General
Council, which was contained in document TN/CTD/7.  This report had been submitted to the General
Council at its meeting of 10 February.
22. The report had two main sections.  The first part recounted factually in summary form the
proceedings of the Special Session since July 2002, from the time that the previous report had beensubmitted to the Council.  The second part made recommendations on the Way Forward.  As
Members were aware, the Special Session had recommended that the General Council take note of the
agreement reached on twelve Agreement-specific proposals, and revert to the question of the adoption
of these proposals at a later date.  The Special Session had also recommended that the General
Council "provide clarification, as it considers appropriate, regarding paragraph 44 of the DohaMinisterial Declaration and paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and
Concerns, and the legal and practical means to give effect to the mandate".  Finally, it had
recommended that, in the intervening period, the Special Session suspend further work.
23. As a brief background to these recommendations made to the General Council, he said that a
large number of Members, and particularly the proponents who had submitted the Agreement-specificproposals, had expressed the view that in light of differences in perception about certain aspects of the
Ministerial mandate, further progress on the Agreement-specific proposals might not be possible until
this issue was clarified by the General Council.  It had been proposed that work on matters before the
Special Session be suspended, pending such clarif ication.  Other Members had viewed some progress
as having been made in the Special Session's work, including on the Agreement-specific proposals.They considered that the source of difficulty relate d mainly to the nature of some of the Agreement-
specific proposals and the expectations by proponents regarding the outcome of their consideration.
These Members had expressed willingness to continue working on the issues before the Special
Session.  The recommendations to the General Counci l reflected agreement in the Special Session that
clarification be sought regarding paragraphs 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and paragraph 12
of the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns and also regarding the legal and
practical means to give effect to the mandate, and pending this clarification, to suspend further workin the Special Session.  The report of the Special Session had been considered by the General Council
during its meeting of 10 and 11 February 2003 and, in light of the absence of consensus on adopting
its recommendations, it had been agreed that the Chairman of the General Council would undertake
consultations on how to take the matter forward.
24. Mr. Harbinson, Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, said that
he had reported to the TNC the previous month that significant differences continued to exist on both
the level of ambition in the agriculture negotiat ions and the methods to be followed.  On that
occasion, he had called again for increased flexibility and a change of gear, in view of the rapidly
approaching deadline.  He had remarked that, despite extensive debate, he had not been given much
guidance from participants as to how they would lik e him to propose solutions to the many problems
faced in the negotiations.  He had accepted his responsibility under the agreed work programme to
produce – on schedule in February – the first draft of the modalities for further commitments.  The
first draft had been duly prepared and circulated on 17 February as document TN/AG/W/1.
25. Consideration of the draft had taken place the previous week in plenary informal and formal
Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture, as well as in associated consultations arranged byhim and among delegations themselves.  A report in  writing would be submitted to the TNC shortly.TN/C/M/7
Page 6
In his view, the first draft had been useful in inaugurating a much more intensive and focused phase in
the agriculture negotiations.  However, once again, in the key areas there had been little or no
agreement among participants as to the level of ambition for reform or the approaches to achieve it.
Such advice as he had received in terms of preparing a revision had been based on delegations'
individual and often conflicting positions, and therefore he still had little collective guidance as to theway ahead.
26. On a slightly more positive note, the discussions the previous week had suggested that, in a
number of areas, there was a need and, by and large, a willingness to undertake further technical
work.  Examples were the concept of "strategic products" and related criteria, the architecture of a
possible special safeguard mechanism for developing countries, tariff quota administration, export
credits and food aid.  On a different tack, as he had indicated in the first draft, there was a need, while
respecting the diverse positions, to explore how and where some of the issues raised in the context of"non-trade concerns" might be approached.
27. He was reflecting on how to register the results of the previous week's work.  In any event,
the draft modalities, as they stood, or as revised or supplemented, would remain on his own
responsibility as Chairman.  In his view, participants  for their part should also reflect carefully on the
lack of progress to date and on the consequences of continued inertia in the negotiations – for that waseffectively what existed, despite intensive commitment all round.  He would continue to try to
facilitate the process as much as possible, but the role of any chairperson had its limits.  There was no
substitute for genuine negotiation among participants, which was yet to be seen, and the time left to
establish modalities was now quickly running out.
28. Ambassador Jara (Chile), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in
Services, said the formal meeting of his group had begun the previous day and would resume on 6
March, and this was an interim report on his own responsibility.  The intervening days would be used
by delegations to hold their bilateral and plurilateral meetings, which was the essence of the
negotiations on services.  At the meeting, under the Assessment of Trade in Services item, substantive
discussions had taken place based on a contribution by China.  Comments of a more general naturehad also been made concerning the objectives of the exercise, and depending on the conclusions to be
drawn, the need to adapt the negotiations in light of the assessment.  One main theme that had come
out of this exercise was that Members, in partic ular developing Members countries, recognized the
benefits of the process of liberalization, but the main question was the speed with which the process
moved forward and how.  Namely, there was recognition that there were limitations and the need for
some prudence while Members adopted a regulatory frameworks to give effect to the liberalization
processes.  Also highlighted was the limitation that Members faced because of the lack of accuratestatistics on trade in services, as well as information on areas of export interest.  This was a long-
standing phenomenon in services, and although statistics had improved, they were far from being
accurate and perfect.
29. On the modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalization, after two years of
discussions and on the basis of intense consultatio ns in recent weeks, including two open-ended and
informal meetings, he had felt confident to suggest a compromise text which could meet with
agreement by Members.  Therefore, he had circulated a revised draft of the modalities and a draft
Chairman's statement in Job(02)/35/Rev.3.  His recent consultations had revealed much support for
what he had set out, and although some Members had some difficulties, they had said they would not
stand in the way of consensus.  One Member had requested more time and he hoped that when theSpecial Session met the following week, a consensus would be reached on this important item, which
would help advance the negotiations.
30. Regarding the modalities for the special treatment for LDCs, an open-ended informal meeting
had been held on 30 January to discuss a draft text prepared by the LDCs.  There had been a focussed
and constructive discussion which had resulted in a good exchange of views.  The LDCs had reportedthat they were in the process of reviewing the comments made by Members at that meeting and theyTN/C/M/7
Page 7
were preparing a revised draft.  Bangladesh had informed the Special Session that work in this regard
was moving forward and that the LDCs hoped to circ ulate their revised draft soon.  He expected that
agreement on the modalities could be reached shortly, as mandated by the GATS, and he encouraged
the LDCs to circulate their revised draft as soon as possible so that the Special Session could
discharge its responsibility.
31. Turning to proposals relating to negotiations under Article XIX of the GATS, he said that
over the past month the number of proposals had declined.  As of the previous day, only one
contribution had been submitted and that had been a joint statement by 52 Members on Maritime
Transport Services, which had received the support of a number of other Members.
32. The representative of the European Communities said that the reports of the Chairpersons
showed that work was progressing well in a number of sectors, while in others there seemed to be
either a lack of engagement or an objective substa ntive difficulty given the great divergence of views,
such as in agriculture.  He expressed some difficulty in dealing with the Spring deadlines question, as
suggested by the Chairman in the informal part of the meeting, independent of the Chairpersons'
progress reports.
33. He wished to comment first on those sectors where discussions seem to be on course and
progressing in a constructive way.  He thanked the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on MarketAccess for launching an extremely fruitful debate in the latest meeting of the Group on the basis of
some 20 crucial issues.  On the salient point of the core modality, Members seemed to be converging
on a formula approach.  Although Members had started to know how to proceed, there was still a
wide spectrum of possibilities as to the end result of the formula.  The European Communities, like
others, would table papers to complete its positions to enable the Chairman to provide a completedoverview by the end of March.  Like the Chairman, his delegation would not speak of obstacles at this
stage and would address the question of flexibility when the positions of other Members on the end
result had crystallized.  At that stage, the Community would certainly contribute to finding solutions.
The Community believed that, on the whole, the negotiations were on course and that delegations
were committed to further liberalization in a sector which covered some 70% of trade in goods.
34. On services, the European Communities agreed with the Chairman of the Special Session of
the Council for Trade in Services that the process of bilateral negotiations was proceeding
satisfactorily.  The Community urged all Members to work on the preparation of their initial offers by
the end of March.  This was a complicated exercise and developing countries might need some more
time.  The exact date of 31 March mattered less than  each Member working hard to participate in the
real start of bilateral negotiations on market access for services as soon as possible, which was an
important developing-country growth sector as well.  In this context, it was important to adoptmodalities for LDCs as soon as possible, and it was equally important to give technical assistance
where needed.  The Community acknowledged that parallel progress should be made on GATS rules.
35. On rules, the European Communities shared the Negotiating Group Chairman's assessment
that on the whole discussions were on course, although still in a preliminary issue identification phase.
His delegation was actively engaged in these negotiations since the Community was aware of theirimportance in the overall outcome of the negotiations and their linkage with non-agricultural market
access.  On trade and environment, the Community th anked the involvement of the Chairperson of the
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment for her personal involvement in the
Committee's decisions to allow UNEP and MEA Secretariat officials to attend the negotiations on an
ad hoc basis.  This was a first step in responding to expectations that had been raised at the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development.
36. He wished to turn to a sector where the level of engagement was not evident.  Geographical
indications, both in wine and spirits and beyond, was a matter of importance for the European
Communities and quite a few other delegations.  On wine and spirits, the European Communities
were somewhat concerned by the time schedule envisaged by the Chairman of the Special Session ofTN/C/M/7
Page 8
the Council for TRIPS, and hoped that the Chairman  would table his negotiating text as early as
possible – before 21 March.  On the wider issue of geographical indications, he would comment under
agenda item 2.
37. He wished also to mention those negotiating issues for which modalities would have to be
established in Cancún, namely the Singapore issues.  The modalities included deadlines, meetingschedules, scope of negotiations and S&D elements, and while the preparatory phase was progressing
well, Members would need to address this question in due time.  The European Communities had
tabled a paper to this effect to the General Council which had been circulated.  On the negotiations on
the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), the Community remained convinced that they should
result in a comprehensive and ambitious package.  His delegation had been the first to launch a wide-
ranging and elaborate proposal to make sure that this result could be achieved within the deadlines
decided in Doha.  If agreement on an ambitious pack age could not be reached by the end of May, the
European Communities would favour a continuation of negotiations until Cancún.  It made no sense
to make amendments to the DSU just for the purpose  of introducing some minimalist changes that did
not address the need for real improvements in the operation of WTO dispute settlement.
38. He wished to now turn to those issues where deadlines were overdue – like TRIPS and Public
Health and S&D treatment – and where deadlines might be at risk due to huge gaps in substantivepositions.  Agriculture was obviously in the latter category, and in the Community's view, the gaps
were the result of unrealistic demands in certain areas and an over-ambitious stance from a minority
of countries.  He wished to reiterated the Eu ropean Communities' determination to agree on a
multilateral solution on TRIPS and Public Health.  Members had been close to an agreement on the
TRIPS Council Chairman's text of 16 December 2002, and some progress in confidence building hadbeen made.  The Community urged Members to go co llectively the extra mile to reach consensus, and
it was confident the Chairman would do his utmost to succeed.  On S&D treatment, Members needed
to engage collectively.  The Chairperson of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and
Environment had made endless efforts to reach agreement both on doables and a way forward, and the
European Communities was confident that the Chairman of the General Council could build on hiswork for an early decision.
39. On agriculture, his delegation thanked the Chairman of the Special Session for his efforts over
the previous week to advance the process of establishing modalities, but regrettably the last Special
Session had not helped to bridge the gaps.  The Community had had the opportunity to explain its
position on the first draft of modalities – why and where it considered the draft unbalanced.  It was
unbalanced vis-à-vis  the market access opportunities offered to LDCs and the weakest of the
developing countries, as it severely eroded their preferential margins in developed countries markets.It was unbalanced with regard to the burden sharing among developed countries, where the European
Communities were called to eliminate export refunds, but other Members could pursue their trade
distorting policies on export credits, bogus food aid and counter-cyclical payments.  The first draft
was not comprehensive since it failed to address non-trade concerns and other important issues like
the peace clause.  The Community had consistently stated that a two step approach to establishingmodalities would not work.  Agreement could only be found on a package of all the issues under
negotiation in agriculture.
40. The Community had also stated that the draft was unrealistic in certain areas, and it shared
common positions with a wide range of Members on important elements of the draft modalities.  In
particular, his delegation noted that the majority of the Membership was in favour of a gradual andflexible approach on tariff reductions that could only be provided by using the Uruguay Round
formula as the European Communities had proposed.  The Community did not think that the over-
ambitious stance from a minority of countries would help the Chairman of the Special Session and the
entire Membership to bridge current gaps.  There were important areas where further technical work
was necessary, and the Community urged the Chairman to hold consultations on all those areas.  TheCommunity was committed to work to meet the deadline of 31 March.  To make that possible, itTN/C/M/7
Page 9
called for a comprehensive modalities draft, which looked after the interests of the LDCs and the
weakest of the developing countries, and that evened the burden sharing among developed countries.
41. The representative of Slovenia, speaking also on behalf of Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and the Slovak Republic, which he
referred to as the "CEFTA Plus" informal group of countries, said these countries were fully
committed to the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), and dete rmined to work with the Chairman and
other Members.  There were a growing number of reasons for deep concern about the situation in the
negotiations.  So far, not a single negotiating deadline set out in the timeline to Cancún had been kept,
and Members were in danger of missing another crucial deadline at the end of the month.  Members
were locked in their positions with little visible effort to interact, and there seemed to be an
insufficient level of mutual confidence that prevented them from moving forward on even less
controversial subjects.
42. When adopting the Doha Ministerial Declaration, Ministers had set out a sequence of
deadlines and events, being aware that progress and decisions in certain areas, such as implementation
or TRIPS and Public Health, could pave the way for positive developments in other areas.  This
sequence of deadlines had been part of the over all balance, making adoption of the DDA possible.
These countries wished to express their concern regarding a possible "avalanche phenomenon" andsupported the Chairman's initiatives to find  solutions to many cross-cutting issues.
43. The previous week, the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture had failed to break
the deadlock.  In fact, it might have even contributed to deeper divisions on the crucial issue of the
farming sector.  The countries for which he was speaking appreciated the Special Session Chairman's
efforts, and those of the Secretariat, in preparing the first draft of modalities.  They regretted,however, that the first draft was not sufficiently balanced to reflect in an equitable way all the
essential aspects of the discussions on agriculture held so far.
44. With regard to the Chairman's first question in the informal segment of the present meeting on
the prospects for establishing the modalities in agriculture by 31 March, the CEFTA Plus countries
regretted that given the divergence in views on this issue, there was no reason to believe that thesemodalities could be established by then.  This dim prospect, however, should not be regarded as an
excuse for slowing down work.  Quite the contrary , the work should be more intensive and result-
oriented.  These countries were willing and ready to engage in a spirit of co-operation in any
undertaking that may be required to achieve this objective.  However, a new more balanced,
document was needed, with a better mix of ambiti on, realism and genuine understanding of the vital
national interests of all Members.  Therefore, a radical or a conservative reading of the Doha mandate
on agriculture should be avoided.  Rather than engaging in ideological debates on the relative meritsof various agricultural models, Members should seek a middle ground for solutions that could be
applied faithfully by the entire Membership.
45. It was of utmost importance that while this new document was being prepared and discussed,
work should be expedited on other issues covered by the DDA.  In this context and on another area
with a March 31 deadline, these countries assessed positively the momentum in the preparation ofoffers on services.  As to market access for non-agricultural goods, much effort was required to
increase flexibility in positions to reach an understanding on the outline of modalities by the end of
March and agreement by the end of May.  With regard to the Chairman's question on the dispute
settlement negotiations, the CEFTA Plus countries appreciated the high level of interest in this area,
which was demonstrated by the large number of contributions.  In order to meet the fast approachingMay deadline, delegations should now focus on the process of consensus building in this area.
46. The CEFTA Plus countries believed that, in line with paragraph 12 of the Ministerial
Declaration, the outstanding implementation issues form ed an integral part of the negotiations.  This,
of course, did not prejudge the outcome of the negotiations on these issues.  As they had stated at the
last TNC, these countries believed it was most unfortunate that the deadline in paragraph 12(b) hadTN/C/M/7
Page 10
not been met.  They feared that delaying decisions on appropriate action beyond the end of March
would threaten to upset the sequence and delicate balance of the various deadlines contained in the
Doha Declaration, and that this could have an adverse impact on the Work Programme as a whole.
They strongly supported and appreciated the efforts of the Chairman together with Friends of the
Chair to find appropriate ways forward for the outstanding implementation issues.  They believed thatfurther intensified and substantive consultations at the TNC level should continue before the end of
March and that decisions needed to be taken before deadlines were reached in other important
negotiating areas.  They suggested that this agenda item remain open so that Members could continue
these discussions and take decisions before the end of the month.
47. The CEFTA Plus countries supported the Chairman's proposal to intensify and deepen work
in Geneva through the direct involvement of senior capital-based officials, which should focus on
searching for solutions to specific problems.  They wished to reiterate that essential decisions shouldnot be put off until Cancún, otherwise the agenda of the Conference would become overloaded, which
would be detrimental to transparency and the ul timate outcome of the Round.  This implied that a
major part of the negotiations would need to be conducted and completed in Geneva prior to the
Ministerial, and these countries were prepared to take an active and responsible role in this crucial
period in the evolution of the DDA.
48. The representative of Djibouti agreed with the Chairman's remark about imminent gridlock,
and he wondered, leaving aside the major differences, where would delegations be willing to make
concessions, and what would they be ready to submit to Ministers in Cancún.  For developing
countries, the important areas were agriculture, services and TRIPS and Public Health, and it was in
these areas that delegations had to be clear about what they could and could not agree on, and thuswhat was ready to be submitted to Ministers and what was not.  Some issues had political aspects that
went beyond the purview of delegations in Geneva.  On agriculture, he wished to thank the Chairman
of the Agriculture Special Session for his repeated st atements that one had to look at the consequences
of the negotiations in this area, because it was of particular importance to developing countries and it
was important that they be present in the negotiations.  Technical assistance was particularlyimportant for the weakest countries in Africa and the LDCs.  Members needed to take stock of what
they agreed on and what they disagreed on, and there was a need to set aside the differences of view
which were political in nature and that depended on Ministers.
49. The representative of Mexico said the DSU was of central importance to the multilateral
trading system because it guaranteed compliance wi th all the other agreements and because it ensured
the rights of developing countries and smaller Me mbers of the organization.  The present negotiations
offered an opportunity for a substantial improvemen t in the functioning of the DSU.  The success of
these negotiations would have to be judged by the tangible benefits achieved.  One central element of
success would have to be making the DSU more useful and effective for developing countries, which
were in most need of this mechanism.  Many developing countries had made many substantial
proposals in these negotiations with a view to impr oving their access to the system.  Mexico believed
that the final package should provide real solutions to the concerns that were at the root of theseproposals, and this would be the criterion that Mexico would use to assess the success of the work
until May in this area.
50. The representative of Kenya said that although many of the negotiating groups had been fairly
active, with focused discussions on a large number of proposals, including from developing countries,
many delegations had not revealed their minimum negotiating positions at this stage.  On trade andenvironment, substantial discussions had taken place on the relationship between existing WTO rules
and specific trade obligations set out in MEAs.  In order to ensure that these negotiations did not take
place at a pace or a level that would leave many developing countries, particularly LDCs, unable to
participate either substantively or procedurally, the Special Session Chairperson’s statement regarding
technical assistance would need to be taken seriously.  A clear definition of what constituted an MEAhad to be discussed and agreed upon first, following which, Members would have to agree on what
would be the "specific trade obligations" referred to in paragraph 31(i).TN/C/M/7
Page 11
51. For the purpose of the negotiations taking place in the negotiations on market access for non-
agricultural products, the CTE Special Session shou ld also define what constituted environmental
goods.  Members would also need to know how the agricultural products which might fall under the
definition of environmental goods would be considered in the negotiating group on market access,
since the CTE Special Session had not mandated the Agriculture Special Session to negotiate on suchproducts.
52. On S&D treatment, his delegation wished to express its disappointment that the CTD Special
Session could not complete its work by the third deadline.  Indeed, it was frustrating that its report had
been neither adopted nor noted during the last General Council meeting, and Kenya was further
disappointed that the same delegations that opposed the report’s adoption had actually participated
actively in its finalization in the Special Session.  This left Members with a dilemma as to the status of
the report.  His delegation wished to state that if the DDA was to be judged as a development round, itwould depend on how fast Members could complete their work in the CTD Special Session.  For this
work to be completed, the clarification sought in the report by the CTD Special Session should be
urgently addressed by the General Council.  On market access for non-agricultural products, his
delegation noted that detailed discussions had taken place based on the Negotiating Group Chairman's
paper and set of questions on each of its items, which elicited a more focused debate.  Kenya expectedthe Chairman to take into account the points made by Members on non-tariff barriers and
environmental goods in his revised text.
53. On TRIPS and Public Health, Kenya’s position was unchanged.  However, his delegation
hoped that the text of 16 December 2002 would soon be acceptable to all Members, so they could
agree on the permanent solution which, to Kenya, should be an amendment of Article 31(f).  Onagriculture, differences existed in the approach to establishing modalities, and this was made difficult
by Members pursuing different objectives and serving different interests.  For instance, large
exporting countries wanted market access for their exports at all costs, on the other hand, for
developing countries in Africa, the economic sustainability of agriculture had a higher priority.  His
delegation therefore felt that Members would need to consider in particular the adjustment costs offurther reform in the agricultural sector.  While, in  principle, freer trade was expected to result in an
efficient market among Members, the relative costs of adjustment among them differed significantly.
For instance, displaced workers in developed countries had more opportunity to move out of
uncompetitive sectors compared to displaced farmers in Africa.  Under the circumstances, Kenya
expected more flexibility to be provided by deve loped-country Members in order to make the reform
program beneficial to all.
54. The representative of Norway agreed with the Chairman that the situation was not reassuring,
but he also said he did not fully agree that there was lack of real engagement.  A lot of engagement
had taken place, but some issues were extremely tough.  Overall, the Chairpersons' reports had not
shown a "doom-and-gloom" situation, and most of the negotiating bodies were working well at this
stage, but some very important issues had cast a shadow over much of the other activities.
55. On the report of the DSB Special Session Chairman, he agreed that one of difficulties had
been the different levels of ambition.  When the DSU mandate had been negotiated the previous year
and it had been decided that it was outside the single undertaking, it was on the premise that Members
were not going to make a new DSU, but rather improve it where improvement was necessary.  Now
that the deadline was coming up, delegations had to be realistic about what could be put into practical
effect.  That was not to say that practically nothing should be done on the DSU, but rather a packagewas needed that was balanced in such a way so that it would serve the system.  The DSU was the
immune system of the WTO and had to be handled with care.  Balance was needed in the package so
that there was something for everybody, and his delegation hoped that the Special Session Chairman
could put together such a package.  Norway did not agree with suggestions that the deadline be
skipped and that the issue be left for Cancún or beyond.TN/C/M/7
Page 12
56. The market access negotiations were one area which showed that the situation was not only
doom and gloom.  The report by the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access had been
encouraging.  His delegation agreed that there seemed to be broad agreement that the Group was
heading towards a formula approach, which would be an important decision.  This had been an issue
of great importance during the Uruguay Round and had taken far more time.  The final content of thepaper was now the focus, and his delegation was look ing forward to the Chairman's modality paper so
that agreement could be reached in May.  This was one of the success stories of the negotiations,
especially in the light of the difficulties the previous year on time-frames in this area.
57. On rules, he shared the views of the Chairman of the Negotiating Group, in particular on the
interpretation of the mandate, to the effect that if it was interpreted by everybody on the basis of its
wording, the negotiations would follow a normal course.  On the CTD Special Session, the
Chairman’s report had been very good and factual.  It was a difficult situation, because although themandate was simple, behind it lay a very difficult issue.  His delegation was confident that the
Chairman of the General Council would be successful in his consultations on this issue, and it
believed that there was a need to look at some of the cross-cutting issues to determine how to move
forward.  On services also, the Chairman's report ha d been positive, and Norway was confident that it
would meet the 31 March deadline for offers on serv ices.  His delegation had also been encouraged by
the Chairman's optimism on reaching agreement on the outstanding issues he had referred to.
58. Finally, the situation in the agriculture negotiations was not so encouraging.  In spite of the
good work by the Special Session Chairman, his first modalities paper was a tremendous
disappointment to Norway.  If the paper was to be put into operational terms, it would have a
devastating effect on agriculture in Norway, and these sorts of results had not been achieved throughbalanced negotiations.  There was a need for more balanced modalities for these negotiations, and his
delegation was hopeful that the second version of the Chairman’s paper would provide such balance.
He noted that the Chairman had said he would explore how non-trade concerns could be addressed,
and his delegation was willing to help the Chairman in that respect.  But his delegation hoped that this
area would not overshadow the good prospects in other areas.
59. The representative of Cuba agreed with the Chairman on the critical situation in which
Members found themselves, and said the cause of this was clear.  At the end of 2001, Ministers had
committed themselves in Doha to taking measures to promote growth and development and to placing
the needs and interests of developing countries at the very heart of the WTO Work Programme.
Slightly over one year later, the 2002 report recently published by the United Nations Economic
Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean indicated that the GDP for that region was below
the level of 1997, thus prolonging to 5 years the economic stagnation there.  Economic activity hadfallen by 0.5%, unemployment was at its highest level in history at 9.1%, inflation had increased to
12% and foreign debt was up to US$ 725 billion.  This had caused an alarming deterioration in social
conditions in Latin America and the Caribbean, leading to 7 million more regional inhabitants in the
poverty statistics.
60. The measures which had been suggested to this region as a way out of poverty and
underdevelopment had not borne fruit.  Trade liberalization could not be an end in itself – it was
essential to change the existing world order.  In the WTO, proposals had been made to try to reverse
this situation.  The granting of unconditional and non-reciprocal S&D treatment to all developing
countries was needed, as was a solution for implementation issues and for access to medicines for
poor countries to help solve health problems.  The work on these issues had not reached satisfactorysolutions and had even gone backwards.  No deadline agreed in Doha had been respected.  In the
agricultural negotiations there continued to be profound differences.  Cuba had made its position clear
at the Agriculture Special Session, and it hoped that the Chairman's second draft would cover its
aspirations.  Development issues were clearly not at the heart of the work programme, contrary to
what had been agreed in Doha, and in Cuba's view it was not because of economic problems, butrather because of a lack of political will to solve the problems.  In barely six months, Ministers would
meet again in Cancún, and Members had time to adopt concrete measures to reaffirm that theTN/C/M/7
Page 13
principal objective of the world multilateral trading system was the development of poor countries
which were the majority of the Members of the WTO.  Cuba was ready to cooperate along these lines.
61. The representative of Switzerland, speaking also on behalf of Bulgaria, Chinese Taipei,
Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Mauritius and Norway, said that these countries had made a statement
at the last Agriculture Special Session containing a number of key messages he wished to repeat at the
present meeting.  The results in the negotiations on agriculture had to be acceptable to all Members.
Since the end of the Uruguay Round, non-trade concerns were on the agenda, and they had to be taken
into account by instruments that adequately covered these concerns and in the figures that were
retained for the reduction commitments.  With regards to market access, these countries all favoured
the Uruguay Round formula which meant that, in addition to the reductions made in the Uruguay
Round, another substantial reduction would be made th at entailed a 50% reduction in tariffs within 10
years – something not seen in the goods negotiations since 1947.  These countries believed that thiswas very substantial and they were pleased that up to 75 Members had given this collective guidance
to the Agriculture Special Session Chairman.
62. With regard to tariff quota volumes, it had to be borne in mind that the intention in the
Uruguay Round was to ensure market access in historic and certain minimum quantities.  This
intention was now being met, and these countries did not see the rationale for expanding quota valuesin the WTO beyond the existing arrangements.  With regard to domestic support, these countries
foresaw the continuation of the green and blue boxes without limitations.  In the amber box, these
countries had great difficulty with the level of ambition flagged in the Special Session Chairman’s
paper.  The essential point was that the reform process should be gradual and allow for the
coexistence of agriculture across countries and regions.  On export subsidies, the positions of these 8countries was flexible.
63. Regarding the development dimension of the Chairman’s draft, these countries were
supportive of many of the S&D elements, in part icular longer implementation periods and lower
reduction rates.  However, they were deeply concerned about the negative effects on the erosion of
preferences that would flow from the paper's very ambitious tariff proposals.  At present LDCs, small
island developing states and other vulnerable developing countries were heavily relying on
preferences to developed markets.  These developing countries would see their market access
opportunities deteriorating as a result of the proposal.  The Chairman’s second draft would have to be
sufficiently comprehensive to cover in parallel all aspects of relevance to the reform process.  The
first draft presented did not address these countries non-trade concerns, so it was not only a question
of figures, but also one of approach.
64. The representative of Brazil shared the Chairman’s concern on the imminent gridlock that
Members were facing, as did other delegations by their statements at the present meeting.  Indeed, a
great deal of political will would be required if Members were to make progress and avoid the two
disastrous outcomes that at present people were envisaging for Cancún – Doha Revision 1 or
Seattle 2.  Brazil hoped that the efforts to avoid these outcomes would be successful, and possibly the
results of the brainstorming the Chairman had su ggested to take place in informal mode would
provide him with some guidance to continue his dialogue with the Ministers.
65. Brazil believed that the Agriculture Special Session Chairman’s paper had generated
momentum in the discussions and created a more interactive debate among delegations, but positions
were still far apart and delegations had so far been unable to build bridges.  This unsatisfactory state
of affairs was due in great part to some delegations insisting on curtailing the levels of ambition on allthree pillars of the Doha mandate and extending them beyond their scope on so-called non-trade
concerns.  Those same delegations continued to press the same key – that there should be some sort of
balance within agriculture.  This insistence was misplaced since all negotiations were conducted
under the principle of the single undertaking.  Should the self-contained principle advocated by these
delegations prevail, Members would have arrived at substantial results during the mandatednegotiations, which had failed.  Brazil noted with satisfaction that the Chairman had indicated that inTN/C/M/7
Page 14
reviewing his paper he would keep in mind the ma ndate in which Ministers had decided that a more
radical approach was required in agriculture.  It had not been meant to be business as usual, therefore
his delegation fully disagreed with the repetition of discredited Uruguay Round formulas or
approaches that had lead to the dismal situat ion that agricultural trade found itself in.
66. The March 31 deadline was important not only for agriculture, but for the Round as a whole
and Brazil stood ready to work in cooperation with all partners to achieve a successful conclusion of
the modalities so as to enable the initial offers to be taken up in Cancún.  However, he wished to
stress that Brazil’s commitment was not open-ended.  It was clearly predicated on the strict
compliance with the mandate.  The Chairman had asked Members for collective guidance, and his
delegation hoped it had contributed to the Chairman’s evaluations with a clear rendering of its views
on these issues.  Brazil trusted that the Chairman w ould discharge his task keeping in mind the need to
uphold the instructions that had been laid down at the Fourth Ministerial Conference.
67. On the negotiations on the review of the DSU, since the beginning Brazil had consistently
stated that work should focus on a limited list of issues which could more easily gather consensus.
The present mandate was to clarify and improve the DSU, not to create a new one.  It had by now
become clear that many of the proposals on the tabl e, despite their importance, could not be fully
discussed or approved before the deadline.  Some of them were of such structural nature that not evena short extension of the deadline would suffice, and they would be better discussed at a more
advanced stage of the Round.  There were proposals that after being further refined or improved,
could serve to further clarify the DSU.  But the necessary momentum in these negotiations could only
be created if Members started as soon as possible to engage in a selection of issues that at the same
time were relevant and useful and could be achieved by May.
68. On non-agricultural market access, Brazil believed that the translation of constructive
engagement thus far into concrete results would de pend on the following factors:  (i) that the work in
the Negotiating Group take fully into account the mandate for less than full reciprocity in reduction
commitments;  (ii) that progress was achieved in the area of rules in order to ensure that concessions
were not undermined by the proliferation of anti-dumping measures;  (iii) that progress was achievedin other areas of the single undertaking which were of particular importance to developing countries
such as implementation and S&D;  and (iv) that  Members could envisage a balanced outcome for
market access negotiations with respect to agriculture.
69. On rules, Brazil believed that the success of the negotiations was a key component of the
DDA as a whole.  There was an important link between anti-dumping and market access.  Developing
countries were especially vulnerable to anti-dumping measures and it was essential to operationalize
Article 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement on S&D treatment.  In terms of future steps in thenegotiations, Brazil believed that although new areas might still be identified, the bulk of the new
documents to be presented by the Group would be focused on developing the points that had already
been raised in the Negotiating Group.  It was however essential that more effort be dedicated to the
negotiations on subsidies, an area that was in a less advanced stage of analysis by the Group.
70. On trade and environment, Brazil was ready to continue to examine the relationship between
existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in the MEAs through an objective exercise
capable of preparing Members for a balanced assessment of the situation in Cancún.  Positions on this
issue remain apart and suspicions regarding a possible protectionist agenda on the part of the
demandeurs had hardly dissipated and did not allow Brazil to anticipate more than minimalist results
in this area.  His delegation was ready to engage in negotiations to promote trade and environment ingoods and services.  Brazil hoped its experience with environmentally friendly alcohol fuel for motor
vehicles would attract foreign attention and generate market opportunities.  As established by the
Doha mandate, both the work on paragraph 32 items as well as work on paragraphs 31(i) and 31(ii),
"shall be compatible with the open and non-discriminatory nature of the multilateral trading system"
and "shall not add to or diminish the rights and obligations of Members under existing WTOagreements".TN/C/M/7
Page 15
71. The representative of Argentina shared the views and concerns of the Chairman on the
present state of play of the negotiations.  Argentina was deeply concerned with the unfortunate
disconnection between what Ministers had agreed in Doha and what was effectively taking place in
the negotiating process.  Argentina believed that th e special circumstances in which the Ministerial
Conference had been held just a few weeks following the events of September 2001 had forcedMembers to reach an understanding.  However, currently some Members, particularly those that had
the most influence on these negotiations, seemed to be doubting the need to comply with this
understanding.  His delegation had no doubt that the only way for Members to get out of this deadlock
was by meeting and complying with the commitments assumed in Doha.
72. On the DSU, little time remained until May to complete work and the number and nature of
the proposals submitted was such that the scenario had become very complex.  The way to extricate
Members from these difficulties would be to focus discussion on the issues which had the greatestpossibility of finding consensus.  Of course, perception of priorities might be subjective, but following
a number of years of discussion on these issues, his delegation believed it was in a position to
recognize those that might find convergence, such as clarification of sequencing between Articles 21
and 22 of the DSU Agreement, the introduction of the right of remittal and the rights of certain third
parties.  The other proposals could be dealt with under another mandate, which could be agreed atCancún, or work could be continued in the DSB Special Session immediately following the expiration
of the present mandate.
73. The Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS had accurately portrayed the
disparate positions in his group and while Argentina could accept the proposed working methodology
of informal consultations, it believed that the presentation of a single negotiating text was a questionwhich should be handled with extreme caution.  There were considerable differences of position on
virtually all aspects of these negotiations and Members needed to agree on the specific time when
such a text would be submitted.  Argentina had suggested – and he believed it had been accepted –
that the matter of the timing of such a paper be including in the Chairman’s consultations in the
coming weeks.  His delegation had suggested that all Members become involved in thesenegotiations, even those who believed they did not ha ve any specific trading interests.  Argentina now
urged them to be involved and to express their views on the crucial issues, such as the legal effects of
the notification and registration system.  Argentina was in favor of a simple, voluntary and
inexpensive system without a legal effect on the Members that did not participate in the system.
74. On the Negotiating Group on Rules, the report of the Chairman had stressed that substantive
progress had been made, but the progress was clearly unbalanced.  The commitment of certain
Members to consider anti-dumping were in clear contrast to the attitude shown by these sameMembers when it came to subsidies, and in particular fishery subsidies.  Argentina was concerned that
following the initial approaches to issues in this area, certain Members had referred to the
inadvisability of negotiating the present disciplines on subsidies and countervailing measures and the
difficulty of covering fishery subsidies.  Some had questioned the mandate of paragraph 28 of the
Doha Declaration.  Negotiations on disciplines fo r fishery subsidies had been clearly agreed by
Ministers in Doha and it was the Negotiating Group on Rules which was the adequate forum for these
negotiations.  His delegation would reject any attempt to distract attention from an area which was of
considerable importance to developing countries, and also for the entire international community, by
means of raising these issues in other areas of negotiation such as market access or environment.
There was no way to preclude or stop the Negotiating Group on Rules from complying with itsMinisterial mandate.
75. On the report of the Chairman of the Special Session of the CTD, his delegation wished to
reiterate its feeling of frustration.  The Chairman, despite his many efforts, could only recount what
had happened up to now for he had no indication from the General Council on how to proceed.
Argentina urged that guidance be given to him in order to move forward in an area that was soimportant to developing countries.TN/C/M/7
Page 16
76. On agriculture, his delegation noted the positive aspect of the Agriculture Special Session
Chairman’s statement to the effect that there was a need to hold more consultations on a whole series
of topics.  This was extremely important at this stage because Argentina was concerned at the wide
divisions on substantive issues under the Doha mandate that had spilt Members into two groups, and
at other issues now being incorporated which might cause further division among developingcountries.  S&D treatment should give protection to all developing countries.  For this reason,
Argentina was monitoring the negotiations and consultations that would be held both on strategic
products and on safeguard mechanisms for developing countries.  The Doha mandate remained valid
and the 75 Members who had been mentioned at the present meeting had raised the same issues at
Doha and now was not the time to change the rules of the game.  The commitment made at Doha
could not be changed now, and it had been clear that balance could not be expected within agriculture
alone, but rather in the overall context of the single undertaking as agreed by the Ministers.  Argentinawould not accept any change to this commitment.
77. The representative of Jamaica said his delegation shared the concerns of the Chairman
regarding the state of play in the run up to Cancún.  Since progress did not always occur at an even
pace, his delegation still believed there was time to impart momentum to the post-Doha process.
Many developing countries were disheartened at the lack of progress in areas which were important,both in substantive and confidence building terms, such as TRIPS and Public Health and S&D
treatment, and where, despite a considerable amount of work carried out, the deadlines had been
missed.  Jamaica believed that Members had to find the necessary will to make progress in these
areas, and for that reason, it might help to recognise the political importance these issues had assumed
both within and outside the organisation.
78. Even while recognising that negotiations did not always proceed along a straight line,
developing countries continued to be concerned and frustrated by a combination of much activity and
little movement.  For countries like Jamaica, the intense schedule of the meetings stretched resources
both in the capital and in Geneva, yet there was little substantive outcome at this point in those areas
of interest to developing countries where results should have been achieved by set deadlines.  Jamaicahoped that the resource constrains that some developing countries faced and which had been evident
in this phase of work, would be taken into account in deciding what was done after Cancún regarding
the scope of work.
79. Jamaica noted good progress in services and hoped that the Modalities for the Treatment of
Autonomous Liberalization could be adopted shortly, since this was an area in which many
developing countries – including CARCOM countries – had carried out, earned and deserve credit for
liberalization measures undertaken.  Although much depended on the bilateral stage of negotiationson services, developing counties were at a disadvantage in this process because of a lack of technical
capacity.  This meant that their submission of requests and offers were often late.  Deadlines were
important, but account should be taken on the inability of some developing countries, despite their
best efforts, to meet deadlines for requests and offers in these negotiations.
80. Agriculture was of paramount interests to all Members, and only modalities that genuinely
sought to bridge differences would be able to generate consensus.  Small developing economies, such
as Jamaica, relied on preferences to maintain rural livelihood and address poverty alleviation, and also
needed flexibility with broader measures including safeguards, to ensure that small farmers were able
to continue farming.  These were critical concerns which his delegation hoped to see addressed
satisfactorily in the new draft of the Chairman's modalities.
81. On rules and market access, Jamaica would address RTAs in rules and the negotiating
modalities in market access at the appropriate time, but  it wished to recall that both of these subjects
were areas which the Doha mandate spoke to the importance of the development dimension.  It was of
vital importance to Jamaica that this developmental concern be reflected fully in the treatment of
RTAs and in the development of the negotiating modalities.TN/C/M/7
Page 17
82. The representative of Chile supported the statement by Brazil with regard to agriculture.
Certain Members, repeating at the present meeting what they had said the previous week in the
Agriculture Special Session, were basically seeking to rewrite the Ministerial mandate in terms of its
goals and ambitions and to negotiate issues for which there was no negotiating mandate.  His
delegation did not know whether this would help to move the process forward or not, but it certainly
was not prudent, given the scenario set out by the TNC Chairman, to have an attitude of rewriting
what had already been agreed.  This was certai nly of no help.  The European Communities, for
example, had said geographical indications was an important issue, and for Chile the topics of air
transport and football were important, but these were not on the negotiating table.
83. The questions of tariff preferences had been raised in both the agriculture and non-agricultural
market access negotiations.  Various developing countries, particularly the LDCs, were justifiably
concerned about the erosion of their preference margins which could have an important impact ontheir economies.  However, it was suspicious that in agriculture, some developed Members were
passionately defending the interests of these developing countries, while they had not done so with the
same passion in the non-agricultural sphere.  Furthermore, they were passionately defending the
preferential margins of the most sensitive product sectors in their highly industrialised economies.  On
the other hand, these same Members had no hesitation in eroding preference margins through manybilateral FTAs that they were negotiating with Chile.
84. Chile believed there was a problem which needed to be faced and which would require the
support and cooperation of all Members.  It was a subject that should not constitute an obstacle to
liberalization of trade, but Members should not conti nue to speak of it in the abstract.  Members had
to know which products were concerned, which mark ets were involved, what were the beneficiary
countries, and so on.  Once Members had a better idea of the problem and its details, then they could
look for solutions, even though these might be transitional and go against the concerns expressed by
various developing countries.  Thus, technical and analytical work had to be carried out, and since the
Secretariat might not have all the relevant information, it was up to the Members which granted these
preferences to provide it.  Therefore, Chile urged that this technical work should be carried out as aconstructive contribution to both areas of the negotiations.
85. The Chairman said that Chile was correct that the Secretariat did not have full information on
preferential rates, and any request to it to conduct a study would entail cooperation from all Members
which extended preferential tariffs.
86. The representative of India said his delegation was disappointed with the progress on S&D
treatment in the CTD Special Session.  This was an area in which many developing countries had
invested much time and resources with no return as yet.  The CTD Special Session had soughtclarification from the General Council on what th e mandate on S&D implied, and India was surprised
and disappointed that the General Council could not even adopt the report of the CTD Special
Session.  There was also no consensus on taking note of the report, and India looked forward to the
consultations that would be held by the Chairman of the General Council to find answers to some of
the clarifications sought by the CTD Special Session.
87. On the implementation proposals covered by paragraph 12(a) of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration and which were being dealt with in  the Negotiating Group on Rules, many developing
countries had resubmitted their implementation proposals to the Negotiating Group with detailed
justifications.  Paragraph 12 of the Ministerial Declaration specifically provided that agreements
reached at an early stage in the negotiation on implementation issues "…shall be treated in accordancewith the provisions of paragraph 47…", which dealt with early harvest.  His delegation hoped that
implementation issues being dealt with in the Rules Negotiating Group would be taken up on a
priority basis so that Members could take decisions on these issues in Cancún.
88. India agreed with the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access that it would be
premature at this stage to discuss flexibilities in the modalities for market access in non-agriculturalTN/C/M/7
Page 18
products.  In the Doha Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, it had been agreed
that a series of results had to follow in accordance with a specific time-frame, but in fact most of these
timelines had already been breached.  This probably fell within the remit of the General Council, but
his delegation believed it could loom large at Cancún and play a significant role in the success of the
Conference.  India would therefore request the Chairman of the General Council to take up the followup to this Decision at the next meeting of the General Council.
89. The representative of Australia agreed with the statement by Argentina that all Members
should take a far greater interest in the negotiations in the TRIPS Council Special Session.  There
were five reasons why developing countries – many of whom had not had the resources or the
inclination to attend the meeting – should come and li sten to the debate, as follows:  1) From the
experience of the TRIPS and Public Health debate, the question of intellectual property concerned
developing countries very closely.  If Members were to change or amend the Agreement on TRIPS,then they had better take a closer interest;  2) Although these negotiations were confined exclusively
to wines and spirits, and understandably many countries did not have a trading interest in those two
groups of products, the fact remained that the dema ndeurs in this area wanted to apply whatever came
out of these negotiations to all products;  3) The mandate made it very clear that this was to be a
voluntary register – Members were free not to part icipate.  However, the demandeurs wanted to make
this a mandatory register, so that every country, no matter what one's interest, would have to
participate;  4)  This system would have a very significant legal impact because every country would
have to change their legislation to give effect to the rights and obligations set out in this register.
Therefore, all Members should take note that even though this might be a voluntary register, they
would be obliged to undertake new costs, obligatio ns, regulations, and so on;  5) Under the system
that the demandeurs were seeking, Members would have a significant increase in dispute resolution
because other countries would be able to challenge proposals to add to the register, but the only way
to challenge it would be to come up with a lot of information.
90. For these reasons, Australia agreed Argentina's suggestions that developing countries should
take a close interest in these negotiations and that the Chairman of the Council for TRIPS SpecialSession should address the question of when to come forward with a proposal in his forthcoming
consultations.  Until there was a better understanding among all Members on the implications of what
was being negotiated, one should be hesitant about putting forward any negotiating text.
91. The representative of China said his delegation shared the Chairman's assessment of the
negotiations, and like others, it was disappointed at the lack of progress in the various negotiating
sectors.  In the light of the Round's mandate in the Doha Declaration and its naming as the
Development Round, efforts should be made to address concerns of the developing Members so as toestablish a more balanced multilateral trading system and to ensure that these Members could benefit
from it.  To achieve this goal, his delegation agreed with Brazil that political will was needed from all
Members, particularly the developed countries, without which breakthroughs were unlikely on S&D
treatment, implementation issues or TRIPS and Public Health.
92. Agriculture was at the center of the negotiations since it was the most important sector for
many developing Members.  This was one of the most distorted sectors and one in which WTO rules
had not been fully applied for too long.  It was thus important for Members to focus their efforts to
establish modalities in the agricultural negotiations.  China hoped that the second draft by the
Agriculture Special Session Chairman would be more ambitious, particularly on export subsidies and
on trade distorting domestic support, and would take into account the concerns of developingcountries.  Real progress on agriculture would help promote the entire process and build the
confidence of many developing Members for this round of negotiations.
93. China was pleased to see the negotiations on trade and services progressing smoothly, but it
wished to stress that although greater liberalization in this sector might help some countries improve
their domestic services, the consequences of liberalization might not always be positive for alldeveloping Members.  This was especially the case when there were insufficient statistics for them toTN/C/M/7
Page 19
assess the consequences and to identify their export interests.  Different speeds of liberalization might
have different impacts, which explained why many developing Members had not yet submitted their
request lists let alone their initial offers.  Obviously, they needed more time to evaluate the results of
the former rounds of liberalization and more technical assistance.  The extent to which negotiations
progressed in sectors like agriculture, would probably impact the process of the negotiations onservices.  Overall, China urged Members to redouble their efforts to produce positive results well
before the Cancún meeting.
94. The representative of Bulgaria said that there seemed to be two basically different and
contradictory approaches as to the situation at the present stage of the negotiations; one was to look
for balance, and another was to reject balance.  From what had been said at the present meeting,
Members were unable to reach agreement although they all wished to do so, which was possible only
through negotiation.  The reason for this was that some were trying to insist on their ambitions, notbalance.  It had been said that insistence on balance was misplaced and the Doha mandate was offered
instead, but not the real mandate, rather a particular interpretation of it.  It had been said, for example,
that because there was the single undertaking, there should not be a balanced outcome within
agriculture.  His delegation could accept an outcome in agriculture only if it was balanced from
Bulgaria's point of view.  His delegation recognized that this was a difficult task, but if the way toachieving the outcome was by rejecting interests and balance, then this meant that one was rejecting
negotiation as a method.  It meant that a country would start negotiating only when its specific
ambitions and interpretation of the mandate were met.  At the present, therefore, Members were not in
a negotiating mode, but rather in a mode of pre-negotiating posturing.
95. The only way out of this mode was for Members to realize that they had to base their work
not on the wishful thinking of some, or on their own ambitions alone, but also on what other Members
were prepared to “give”.  Various Members had set out vastly different ambitions, but draft modalities
based on a concoction of these ambitions was not realistic.  This did not offer the basis for the positive
linkages which the Chairman had called for, wher e one country would ask another for something in
exchange for something else.  The approach, based on ambition, had failed, and Members had to lookfor something else, based on positive linkages.
96. His delegation believed that Members would start making progress only when they started
talking to each other on the basis of balance of interests.  The sooner they started doing this, the
sooner they would be able to create space for some achievement in Cancún.  If Members did not get
away from the present mode of pre-negotiating posturing, Bulgaria did not see much prospect for
success at Cancún, not to speak of the upcoming deadlines.  The present attitude jeopardized not only
the upcoming deadlines, but also Cancún itself.
97. Ambassador Balás (Hungary), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement
Body, noted that that the statements on the work of his group at the present meeting, although
recognizing the need for a result in May, had underlined and reinforced what he had mentioned in his
introduction, and that was the discrepancy in the levels of ambition of the Membership.  Some
Members had emphasized that agreement should be reached on matters on which there could beconsensus, which, for some, was the correct interpretation of the mandate, while others had said they
were not interested in such an outcome.  He called the attention of all Members who actively
participated – and he was pleased so many developing countries were active participants – that in the
coming weeks, even as discussion continued on subs tance, Members had to come to an understanding
regarding the level of ambition.  Unfortunately, the groups' mandate from Ministers had not beenspecific on the question of ambition so it was up to the level of consensus that could be achieved.
98. The representative of Nigeria supported the statement of Bulgaria, and said Members were
repeating the same themes at each meeting which did not appear to move the process forward.  The
Chairman had mentioned political will and support, a nd Nigeria wished to see these appear very soon.
Members were under pressure to delay discussion to the last minute, when issues would be rushed andresult in there being nothing to take to Cancún.  Delegations should begin to identify areas ofTN/C/M/7
Page 20
consensus and those where agreement might be almost impossible.  He wondered if progress was
going to be made in light of the repeated urgings of the Chairman and the Chairpersons at each TNC
meeting.  All that was happening was that Members were restating their known positions.  His
delegation thanked the Agriculture Special Session Chairman for his first draft, which was a good
basis to make progress, but Members needed to reflect on whether they were just making statementsthat reaffirmed earlier positions or trying to add something to make progress.  Therefore, Members
should reflect on Bulgaria's statement, otherwise they might find next TNC meeting empty.
99. The representative of Pakistan said that, despite some active work done in the negotiating
bodies, no real progress was being made.  The issues being dealt with might be difficult, but the
deadlock Members were being confronted with was mainly due to a lack of political will of some
developed Members.  Pakistan would term this situation a political impasse.  Members all used the
words, "poorest," "the LDCs," and "what we do, a little bit, to improve their lot."  At the same time,this "little bit" was used in a matter to foreclose the possibilities of wider gains for the wider
Membership.  The S&D issue had been blocked, there was no movement on implementation issues,
and on agriculture,  the Special Session Chairman had expressed his concern about the state of inertia,
which was because of the passionate adherence to divergent positions.  Pakistan hoped that, in the
resumed negotiations on agriculture, more light than heat would be generated.  Members were tryingtheir best to belie the Ministers' assertion of bringing development to the heart of the WTO.  This was
evident in efforts to delay any outcome on developm ent issues.  Pakistan hoped that a marked change
would be evident in attitude and political will would be infused to meet the Ministers mandate so that
even progress could be made in all areas.
100. The representative of Senegal said the meagre results and progress recorded up to now in the
Doha Work Programme did not hold out hopes for a substantial harvest in Cancún.  One had to look
at reality – the first deadlines had not given satisfactory results, such as on TRIPS and Public Health,
S&D treatment and even on implementation issues.  It would be logical to ask whether other issues,
given the linkages among them, might not undergo the same fate.  If one were to put oneself in the
place of many developing countries, one might tend to answer yes to that question.  However, hisdelegation wanted to remain constructive and not give way to the tendency towards deadlock.
Senegal was pleased to see that, in some areas, the breath and scope of discussions allowed for a
positive outcome, and hoped that this would trigger further progress.
101. Senegal, as an LDC, had a particular interest in certain areas of work.  One of these areas was
agriculture, the possible exemption from commitments for LDCs was a positive signal.  However,
certain LDCs required clarification so that appropriate coverage could be given to them for safeguard
mechanisms for certain products and one could not overlook the Marrakech Declaration on net foodimporting developing countries, where the results could play an important role in food security for
these countries.  On services, the modalities for special treatment for LDCs would be a welcome
contribution to ensure market access in sectors of interest to LDCs.  This was also useful in
determining their offers on the basis of liberalization of their sectors.  In the negotiations on trade and
environment, as the Chairperson of the Special Session had stressed, technical assistance wasparticularly important for many developing countries and LDCs.  In the negotiations on rules,
fisheries subsidies were of particular interest to developing countries and LDCs, particularly due to
the importance of the fishery sector in their econom ies.  The stakes involved in these negotiations
should be made clearer.  There were economic and trade as well as environmental stakes, and small
developing countries and LDCs should be fully info rmed of the impact of the present rules or any
modification of them on fishing resources in general.  Senegal thought this was a key issue to help
determine whether the rules would be sufficient to help developing countries reach the hoped for
outcome in the protection of the environment, but also for those that depended on market access for
fisheries.  Assistance from the Secretariat in this area would be most welcome – not individual
country assistance – but rather input at this level which would make it possible to fully grasp theimportance and stakes of these negotiations.TN/C/M/7
Page 21
102. On dispute settlement, an improvement of the rules was being sought, and this objective
should ensure that developing countries could better participate in the dispute settlement mechanism.
The African Group had made relevant proposals in this area, which would make it easier for
developing countries to have access to the present system.  On market access for non-agricultural
goods, as the Chairman of the Negotiating Group had stated, Members had responded to the requestfor notification of non-tariff measures.  However, his delegation wished to know whether the
problems raised would be solved on a case-by-case basis in the negotiations, because countries had
notified where non-tariff measures were encountered, or whether Members were going to consider a
more general type of solution which would apply to all of the non-tariff measures and barriers that had
been notified.
103. The representative of Morocco, speaking on behalf of the African Group
, said the African
Group shared the concerns of the Chairman with re spect to the slowness obstructing progress in the
negotiations and, like the Chairman, hoped that political will would be found so that Members could
proceed to Cancún in a spirit of openness, responsibility and commitment to meet the expectations of
their countries and the international community.  The present meeting was taking place at a crucial
moment in the Doha Work Programme since it was the last meeting before Members were due to
establish modalities, by the end of March, in crucial areas such as agriculture, in the knowledge thatthe deadlines set for the implementation of the Doha agenda on TRIPS and Public Health and on
implementation had not been respected.  One had to recognize that the development dimension on
which the outcomes from Doha seemed to have been put into doubt, because the interests of
developing countries with respect to certain issues crucial to their economies, had not been taken into
consideration, as set out in letter and spirit in the Doha Declarations.  It was up to all Members at thiscrucial stage to become fully aware of the situation and to do everything possible so that the
commitments undertaken by Ministers in Doha would be respected.  This situation was even more
disturbing because the major deadline of Cancún was just a few months away.  The African Group
urged all Members to make new efforts to re-establish and reactivate the dynamism from Doha in
which they had invested much effort and energy.
104. Few meetings of the negotiating bodies had taken place since the last TNC meeting, so he
wished to address only some areas of work which were of crucial importance at this stage.  On TRIPS
and Public Health, after not having met the first Doha agenda deadline of 31 December 2002, this
highly humanitarian and urgent question unfort unately continued to be postponed while there
continued to be thousands of victims in Africa each day.  The African Group believed that this
situation had led to an atmosphere of mistrust and doubt with respect to the real meaning of the
development dimension and that it compromised th e chances of completing the present negotiating
round.  The Group remained concerned as to the fate of this question thus far and wished to reiterate
its belief in a multilateral, sure and durable solution.  The outcome in this area would determine the
success of the Round.
105. With respect to the negotiations on agriculture, the last meeting of the Agriculture Special
Sessions Committee had addressed the Chairman's first draft of the modalities.  Although this text hadthe merit of providing a less complex basis for the work, the African Group believed that certain
proposals did not respond to the developing countries' objectives.  Furthermore, certain proposals for
S&D commitments might harm the already very fragile economies of such countries.  With regard to
tariff-related S&D, it had been proposed that a greater reduction rate be applied for high tariffs.  In
this case, it was important to remember that the high rates applied by developing countries weremostly a result of the "tariffication" which had occurred when non-tariff measures had been
transformed into tariff measures, and were not the result of applying tariff escalation.
106. The African Group attached great importance to preferential regimes and hoped that the new
draft of the modalities would take into account the concerns it had expressed the previous week.  The
Group also hoped that the new draft would cover the concerns of the net food-importing developingcountries in connection with the implementation of the Marrakesh Decision on the negative effects of
the reform programme on least-developed and NFIDCs.  The Group hoped that the new text wouldTN/C/M/7
Page 22
also reflect the necessary balance between the three pillars and between the requirements of
liberalization and development needs.
107. With respect to trade in services, the negotiations in this area seemed to be progressing at a
more regular pace than other areas, and Members could be proud of the serious and pragmatic manner
in which they were all taking up these negotiations.  However, the requests submitted by developedcountries were too ambitious and seemed to overlook the legal framework in which they had to be
presented to developing Members, namely GATS Article IV on increasing participation of developing
countries and Article XIX on progressive liberalization.  The African Group urged the demandeurs to
observe this legal basis in their assessment of developing countries' responses to these requests.
Given the lack of national capacities of developing countries in terms of analysis and evaluation of
these requests, and taking into account the multiplicity of sectors covered, the Group suggested that a
certain flexibility and tolerance be exercised with respect to the 31 March 2003 deadline.  The Groupbelieved that if this deadline was to be extended by a sufficient additional period, the overall
negotiating process would not be affected.  It had been widely acknowledged that the negotiations on
services were the most regular and constant part of the Doha Round.  As a result, an additional period
would make this process more efficient in attaining the objectives set out in the Ministerial
Declaration.  Finally, the African Group wished to recall the necessity of an overall and balancedapproach across all negotiating areas and to restate its belief in the positive dynamism created at
Doha, which had been based on the equality of all the various negotiating issues.
108. The Chairman said that he had little to add to his opening remarks.  The willingness to seek
compromise appeared to be the key to avoiding the gridlock that the negotiations seemed to be
moving into.  Participants needed to rebuild the elements of trust in the Doha agenda and amongthemselves.
109. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the reports of the bodies established by it and
of the statements made.
2. Outstanding implementation issues – (paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration) – Report by the Chairman
110. The Chairman recalled the strenuous efforts that had been made over the past 5-6 years to
address implementation-related concerns.  Implementation had been mentioned in both the Singapore
and Geneva Ministerial Declarations, and it had been a major dossier at Seattle and in the preparatory
process for that Conference.  In 2000-2001, many hundreds of hours had been spent on these issues in
the General Council and its subsidiary bodies.  The various decisions at Doha had left a number of
"hard-core" issues for which no specific negotiating mandate had been provided.  These issues hadgone to the various subsidiary bodies for examination, and they had come back to the TNC in
December of the previous year.  He also recalled that the TNC's mandate in this respect, as set out in
paragraph 12(b), concerned "appropriate action".
111. This was still the issue before the TNC:  what was that appropriate action in each case?  The
reports from the various bodies in December had shown little agreement on appropriate solutions tothese issues.  It had also not been possible to reach consensus in the TNC on appropriate action.  This
was why he had suggested at the February TNC the course of action he had been following since then,
namely consulting on possible next steps with assistance of the relevant Chairpersons and the Deputy
Directors-General (DDGs), using the 5 categories he had outlined in December to try to identify ways
forward on the different issues.
112. These categories were:
1. resolving the issue;
2. agreeing that no further action is needed on the issue;TN/C/M/7
Page 23
3. referring the issue to a negotiating body;
4. continuing work in the relevant subsidiary body under enhanced supervision by the TNC
and with a clear deadline, perhaps June 2003; and,
5. undertaking further work at the level of the TNC.
113. He had to inform delegations that, despite the serious efforts made by all involved, for which
he thanked them, very little progress had been possible in his consultations.  Firstly, delegations had
remained far from agreement on how to place individual issues within an overall framework such as
he had set out in December.  On some issues – TBT and some TRIPS issues, for example – the
consultations had shown that continuing technical work in the Committee could possibly contribute to
a solution, something like option 4, in other words.  However, on others – TRIMs was one such case –
a number of Members saw no point in continuing work while others wanted to take up the substance
of the issue in the TNC.  So there was a stand-off between options 2 and 5 in this case.  The position
on extension of geographical indications was similarly, if not even more, polarised.  Furthermore,
some delegations maintained that all issues had to be treated in the same way, for example by taking
them all up in the TNC, in other words option 5.  There was clearly no consensus on this point either.
114. The fact remained that the divergences on how to treat many of these issues reflected serious
problems of substance.  One had to recognize this fact, but he hoped that it would not mean Memberswould deny themselves the possibility of making progress in those areas where it might be possible.
115. For certain issues, he was still hopeful that Members could reach an understanding to permit
technical work to go on where it seemed useful, but he had to stress that this would be without
prejudice to anyone's position as to the status of any particular issue.  After all, paragraph 12(b) of the
Doha Declaration made it clear that it was the TNC which was to decide on "appropriate action", somaking use of expert bodies where they still had a contribution to make to deepening Members'
understanding of these issues would not detract from the overall responsibility and decision-making
authority of the TNC.
116. He therefore intended to make proposals for further work on some of the issues before the
TNC.  He was not, at this stage, in a position to do so on all of them, but he intended to continue hisconsultations with Members on the other issues, with assistance of the relevant Chairpersons and the
DDGs.
117. He then made the following proposals:
"Technical Barriers to Trade:
On the 2 issues in the TBT area, namely tirets 33 and 34, I suggest the following
approach.  The Chairperson of the TBT Committee has reported to me that further
technical work by the Committee on both tirets could contribute to a substantivedecision on these issues in the TNC.  As I said earlier, this would be akin to option 4,
but let me be clear what I am suggesting here.  The work would be carried out under
the auspices of the TNC;  this would not be a pure referral back to the subsidiary
body.  The Committee would report back on its work by June, so the outcome would
thus return to the TNC for decision.
Customs Valuation:
On tiret 61, in line with what I suggested on TBT, I would like to suggest that further
technical work should be undertaken by the Committee under the auspices of the
TNC which would report to the TNC by June.
Safeguards:
On tiret 84, I suggest that we could apply a slightly different version of option 4.
Here the TNC would ask the Committee to ensure that this issue remain part of itsTN/C/M/7
Page 24
regular work programme, which I understand would be acceptable to the proponent of
the original proposal.
BOP/CTD:
In 2002, tiret 3 was taken up by both the Committees on Trade and Development and
on BOP Restrictions.  I suggest we allow these Committees to continue theirtechnical work, in line with what I have just set out in the TBT and Customs
Valuation areas."
118. He would go no further on the present occasion.  But he wished to stress again that for the
tirets on which he had not made suggestions, he wo uld continue his consultations with delegations in
conjunction with the relevant Chairpersons concer ning possible next steps.  He would, of course,
report again to the next meeting of the TNC.
119. The representative of Canada said the Chairman had recalled the long history of work on
implementation, and the impasse that Members had faced at the December TNC meeting.  At that
time, the Chairman had proposed five options to address the outstanding issues, and Canada had
supported and continued to support the Chairman's approach, since it was constructive to identify
various ways to move forward on the outstanding implementation proposals.  On the basis of current
consultations that the Chairman and certain Chairpersons had held, the Chairman had proposed thatMembers continue to make progress on some issues by referring them back to the appropriate bodies
under the auspices of the TNC for further technical work, and Canada agreed that, for those issues that
the Chairman referred to, this was a useful suggestion.  As an example, for the outstanding TBT
issues, it seemed to make immanent sense to con tinue the work in the TBT Committee.  Indeed, the
work on the two tirets in question was part of the Work Programme that had been established underthe Committee's triennial review of the TBT Agreement, so that work was ongoing.  In that regard,
Members should look to the precedent of the SPS implementation issue where technical work in the
Committee had provided the basis to positively address the implementation issues before it and
allowed for decisions in that body.  His delegation believed that the implementation issues had to be
addressed on a pragmatic basis using approaches that would allow Members to move forward in theareas in which progress was possible at the present.  Canada believed that the Chairman's proposal
would help Members do that, and therefore supported the Chairman.
120. The representative of Egypt said this importa nt development issue had been waiting for a
solution since 1988.  At the present, more than any time before, a meaningful resolution to all
implementation issues was very much required.  Not necessarily as a confidence-building measure,
but as a matter of credibility for the multilateral trading system as a whole and the current negotiations
in particular, since implementation issues had been recognized as an integral part of the Doha WorkProgramme and were to be addressed on a priority basis.  At the December meeting, Egypt had
expressed the need for the TNC to operationalize its supervisory role and provide the necessary
guidance to achieve progress on these issues.  Her delegation had even proposed to do this through a
Dedicated Session of the TNC, similar to the implementation mechanism or Special Sessions of the
General Council that had addressed the issue be tween Seattle and Doha, and which had achieved
some results as reflected in the decision adopted in Doha on some implementation-related issues and
concerns.
121. At the present meeting, Egypt urged the Chairman to continue with his consultations to be
able to report on a consolidated proposal to th e TNC dealing with all outstanding implementation
tirets as a whole, thus avoiding the problems of fragmentation.  Egypt believed that this required fromall parties concerned, particularly developed partners, the necessary political will to allow the
fulfilment, as an early harvest, of the mandate renewed by the Ministers in Doha to find appropriate
solutions to all implementation difficulties.
122. The representative of New Zealand thanked the Chairman for his concrete procedural
proposal to get Members out of the impasse.  He wished first to recap some of the Chairman'sTN/C/M/7
Page 25
thoughts on the matter.  The Chairman's starting-point was that it was the role of the TNC to decide
on appropriate action, which came directly from paragraph 12 of the Doha Declaration, so Members
had to decide, with the guidance of the Chairman, what constituted appropriate action.  The Chairman
was trying to find a solution that did not prejudice deeply entrenched and well known differences –
which Members did not need to re-debate – but at the same time, did not deny Members thepossibility of making some progress.  He noted that in the Chairman's analysis he was not in a
position to cover all the issues, and he would hope that, following the point made by Egypt that the
demandeurs wanted action on all of the issues, the formula advanced by the Chairman was consistent
with that perspective.  The Chairman had recogn ized that this was a partial solution and further
consultations would be necessary on those elements where the Chairman felt he could not make a
concrete proposition at this point.
123. Members had just passed from the debate on the Agriculture Special Session Chairman's
paper to a debate on the TNC Chairman's proposal.  Both Chairmen were in difficult positions facing
entrenched positions, however there was one difference.  While the agriculture paper had been put
down without one single hour of intensive negotiations among principle parties, the TNC Chairman
had held extensive consultation in open, formal, informal meetings and a series of other
configurations.  The Chairman's proposal was not perfect from the perspective of the position thatNew Zealand had traditionally held, but perfection was too high a standard to apply to this proposal.
The overriding issue of principle was whether the Members supported the Chairman in his carefully
constructed, subtle proposal, designed to preserve Members' positions.  There could only be one
answer to this.  New Zealand therefore supported the Chairman's proposal, and noted that it was a
work in progress.  The position of what appropriate action the TNC might take on any one of theseimplementation issues was likely to vary as the process evolved, as understanding deepened and as
other linkages were either removed or added to the equation.  As an alternative to a pointless
procedural blockage, New Zealand supported the Chairman's proposal.
124. The representative of India wished to review what had happened over the past year and a
quarter in various WTO bodies on the implementation issue, which had been on the table for a long
time before Doha.  The issue, as mentioned by the Chairman, had been in Singapore and later in
paragraph 9 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration.  The regular bodies had been discussing
implementation issues for more than a year without making a breakthrough.  Therefore, India had
considerable discomfort with the idea of sending these issues back to the committees concerned.  If
the issues had already achieved a certain level of progress, and very little effort was required to solve
these issues, his delegation did not see why they should be sent back to the regular bodies.  Progress
could be achieved very well within the TNC or through informal consultations under the Chairman'sleadership.  His delegation agreed with Egypt that, if Members were serious about solving these
problems, it was better not to be drawn towards further fragmentation by again distributing them to
various bodies.  It would be better to try to focus on these issues, and then find a solution, in the TNC.
Ideally, the Chairman could hold informal consultations on various issues and then, in a spirit of
constructive engagement, all Members could try to find substantive solutions rather than purelyprocedural ones.  India was uncomfortable with procedural solutions, and it urged the Chairman to
take its concerns on board to help Members find concrete solutions.
125. The representative of Lesotho agreed with those who had said that these issues had been on
the table for quite a while and there was a need to show that the system could deliver.  His delegation
wished to underscore the critical importance of meeting the new deadlines to be set in 2003 on theissues set out by the Chairman, and not extending them but rather having outcomes.  In this respect,
the role of the TNC as a supervising body would also be important in ensuring a positive outcome by
June.  His delegation thus urged the Chairman to ensure that the enhancement of the TNC's role
should include the way in which the regular committees would address the issues, and bring an added
value to the process.  His delegation also encourag ed the Chairman to intensify his consultations on
the other outstanding issues to ensure a positive outcome well before Cancún.  Like India, his
delegation was concerned that sending these issues back to the regular bodies would place
considerable demands on capacity-constrained delegations such as his, and this matter meritedTN/C/M/7
Page 26
consideration.  While, in principle, his delegation supported the way the Chairman proposed to
proceed, it wished to remind him that it would demand a great deal of attention by such delegations to
follow these issues in the regular bodies.  Neverthe less, his delegation believed that efforts had to be
made to solve the outstanding issues.
126. The representative of Argentina thanked the Chairman for his efforts to resolve an issue
which was among the priorities for Argentina as a developing country.  The Chairman was proposing
a way to move forward with respect to certain i ssues listed in Job(01)/152/Rev.1, and Argentina could
support the mechanism proposed by him, which respected the guidelines he had previously set out on
how to move forward.  Argentina supported th e vast majority of the issues listed in
Job(01)/152/Rev.1, which were issues of enormous importance for developing countries, and it was
committed to making progress on them.  However, that did not concern all of these issues, because
some were not issues of vital interest to developing  countries, or were even the contrary.  Argentina
fully agreed that the Chairman should continue his consultations to include new items in order to
continue making progress.  However, Argentina had difficulty accepting the view that in order to
make progress on one item, Members had to make simultaneous progress on all other items, since it
believed that this would not move things forward for those who had raised this item.  Members should
not lose time on items where progress could be made, and therefore Argentina agreed with theChairman's proposal.
127. The representative of the European Communities regretted that the Chairman's consultations
had put far too much emphasis on process and procedure with too little emphasis on substance.  For
the European Communities the course of action could only be the result of serious substantive
discussion, and his delegation did not think that on the whole, serious and substantive discussion hadtaken place.  He wished to reiterate the European Communities' view that all outstanding
implementation issues since 1 January 2003 were at the level of the TNC and that they had to be dealt
with exclusively in the framework of the TNC.  A ll these outstanding issues, at least as a starting-
point, had to be dealt with on an equal footing, and like Egypt and India, his delegation could not
accept a piecemeal approach in which some things were done at the present meeting for some items ofinterest to certain countries while reserving other items for another instance.  In this respect, his
delegation was encouraged by the statement by Argentina.  The European Communities could not
accept a piecemeal approach, it wanted a consolidated approach.  His delegation did not think this was
too much to ask.  The Community requested that, on each and every implementation issue, Members
engage in a serious, substantive discussion in orde r to bring the process forward and to determine the
further course of action.  From what had been said at the present meeting, his delegation had
understood that, on part of the outstanding implementation issues, there was not a willingness toengage in any substantive, serious discussion.  If that was the case, Members had a serious problem.
128. Despite having serious problems with many of the outstanding implementation issues, the
European Communities was willing to discuss, at th e level of the TNC, any of these issues, and the
Community expected other Members also to be willing to engage in serious discussions on items
which might be of interest to it, and to quite a substantial constituency in the Membership of theWTO.  The Community was willing to discuss these issues at the level of the TNC for the time which
was needed, in Dedicated Sessions of the TNC or under Friends of the Chair, and as far as his
delegation was aware, the Chairman of the TRIPS Council had proposed to the Chairman to further
engage in substantive discussions on outstanding TRIPS issues, so that should be followed up.
129. The Community accepted that, in the course of these discussions, either at the level of the
TNC or in Dedicated Sessions or in Friends of the Chair groups, further technical input by subsidiary
bodies might be required, but only as a part of that process, where each issue was handled on an equal
footing and where each delegation would at least be willing to engage in some serious discussion.  If
there were a number of issues where Members were not even prepared to engage in discussion, then
there was a serious political problem at the level of the TNC and Members should discuss this – ifneed be at each and every TNC meeting.TN/C/M/7
Page 27
130. The representative for the United States said that the difficulties that the Chairman had
encountered in his consultations were not surprising given that there were sharply differing views
among Members.  Her delegation did not believe, however, that these difficulties were a matter of
political will, but rather a matter of substantive disagreement among Members, and over the past
many months there had been substantive discussion on these topics.  Her delegation continued tobelieve that a one size-fits-all approach would not work and it had been clear in the consultations held
by the Chairman, the Deputy Directors-General and the Friends of the Chair about how it believed
each issue should be treated under the Chairman's 5 proposed options.  While the United States would
have differing ideas from what the Chairman had recommended at the present meeting on the items
mentioned, in the interest of pushing the work ahead, her delegation concurred with the Chairman's
proposal and it urged others to agree with this approach.
131. Members should bear in mind where they had started, and where they found themselves at the
present, on this topic.  Under the overall heading of implementation, Members had started with about
100 proposals.  Of those, Members had reached closure on about 50 at Doha.  About half of the
remainder had been sent to negotiating groups, and those still remaining had received another full
vetting within the relevant WTO bodies.  Progress had been made toward affirmative outcomes on
some, but it was apparent that for other issues, closure would not involve an affirmative outcome.The Ministerial Declaration called on the TNC to take appropriate action on these issues.  It left full
freedom to the TNC to decide what action would be appropriate, including the option of deciding that
no further action was needed.  Members needed to be frank with one another.  Discussions had shown
that on a number of these issues, the gaps were too wide to bridge.  So now Members needed to agree
on a practical way forward that allowed further progress where possible and, more generally, whichallowed Members to focus resources where they truly had the most to gain in terms of growth and
development.
132. The representative of Hungary said that appropriate action on implementation issues was a
long overdue task of the TNC, since this was the third meeting on this question, and it was already
two months since the original deadline.  Hungary had looked forward to the informal consultations,
expecting to see movement, but was disappointed that appropriate action could only be recommended
on 5 issues with the proposal that the rest of the issues be left undecided and subject to further
consultation.  Hungary could not support this outcome, and like Egypt, India and the European
Communities, it believed that uniform treatment was needed for all issues, but this did not necessarily
mean a uniform outcome.  A substantive discussion on all issues was needed at the TNC level or in a
body designated by the TNC working under the TNC.  These discussions had to be substantive and
not procedural.  Thus, Hungary supported those who could not agree to a piecemeal approach,preferring a comprehensive one.  The issues concerned were mostly non-technical and, as the
Chairman had pointed out, long discussions took place both prior to and after Doha, and they were
political issues fit for substantive discussion at the level of the TNC.  Hungary hoped that the
Chairman would find an outcome which would provide for the possibility of substantive discussions.
His delegation recognized that different delegations had different priorities on various issues, but inspite of these differences, discussions on substance would provide an opportunity to come to a agreed
solution.
133. As he had said, the deadline was now two months  past, which upset the sequence of decisions
determined in Doha.  Certain decisions had been foreseen for a certain date to serve as a basis for
subsequent decisions.  Hungary had interests in some of the implementation issues, and otherupcoming deadlines, such as the one at the end of March in the agriculture negotiations, were clearly
linked to the treatment of some of the implementation issues.  His delegation did not ask for more
than the opportunity of discussing the issues without prejudging the outcome, but apparently this was
unacceptable to a number of delegations.  Hungary was sorry to state that this kind of procedural
blockage would have an unavoidably negative impact on fulfilling subsequent deadlines.
134. The representative of Cuba said implementation had always been a priority for her country
because it afforded the possibility of establishing a certain balance to contrast the imbalances that hadTN/C/M/7
Page 28
originated in the Uruguay Round.  Her delegation believed that recommencing discussion of these
issues in subsidiary bodies would not contribute to any solution, since discussions had already taken
place in those bodies and the present lack of solutions had nothing to do with technical questions.
Small delegations, such as Cuba, experienced many di fficulties in following this type of work, and for
this reason, Cuba agreed with Egypt, Indi a, the European Communities and Hungary that
consultations should continue in the TNC, since these issues required political solutions.
135. The representative of Chile believed that the Chairman's proposals were based on a series of
consultations he had undertaken with other Chairpersons.  The proposal to undertake further work in
the subsidiary bodies responded to what the Chairman had heard in these consultations – in some
cases it would be possible to reach solutions in the subsidiary bodies.  Similarly, his delegation
believed that, for the issues on which he had not suggested a way of proceeding, the Chairman had not
heard similar suggestions.  His delegation respected the Chairman's conclusions and believed that thiswas quite feasible.  It also realised, from what the Chairman had said, that submitting issues to
subsidiary bodies would not be repeating the same thing that had already been done since this would
be under the close supervision of the TNC, which would make it different from the work carried out
previously.  The Chairman's proposal also did not imply any substantive solutions, but would rather
be a way to continue to explore opportunities to search for solutions and this was reasonable.  In thesame way, his delegation believed that the Chairm an's proposal would not prejudice whatsoever or
contradict the position of those who sought overal l solutions to all issues, since up to now Members
did not have any substantive solutions in any of these areas.
136. Some delegations had expressed the view that all of these areas had to be dealt with, and
solutions found for, all of these issues on an equal f ooting.  Chile believed that this did not mean that
for all areas the solution had be the same – if he had a basket of 100 apples and one was rancid, it was
perfectly possible that one could eat 99 apples and throw away the one that was rancid;  Chile did not
want to end up with a rancid apple, but would rather throw it in the garbage.
137. The representative of Australia applauded the Chairman's efforts, patience and persistence in
trying to navigate around this particular problem.  His delegation was prepared to accept the
Chairman's proposal as a sensible, practical and pragmatic one and was disappointed that some
delegations were not prepared to accept it.  He wished to recall that when there had been a similar
situation in the work on S&D treatment, all Me mbers, including the European Communities, had
agreed to consider each issue on its merits.  The same approach was needed on implementation, and
his delegation did not agree with the dogmatic view that everything had to be considered at the same
level.  Each one of the issues should be looked at on its merits and dealt with accordingly.  Many
delegations had said that these were not technical issues, but rather political ones and his delegationdisagreed with this.  Many had also said that all they wanted was a serious discussion, but his
delegation had already participated in discussions on some of these issues, and these had been very
serious and useful.  Delegations now had a better appreciation of what was involved in some of these
implementation issues than when paragraph 12 of the Doha Declaration had been agreed.  However,
these discussions had not yet played out completely.  Argentina and his delegation had madestatements under agenda item 1 on the negotiations in the TRIPS Council Special Session, to the
effect that many delegations did not understand the full implications of those negotiations, and he
believed the same held true for some of the implementation issues.  In conclusion, Australia was
prepared to deal with these issues on a pragmatic basis, and fully accepted the Chairman's proposal.
138. The representative of Norway said that implementation issues were not new, but rather had
been an important topic for a number of years.  These were not proposals developed over the past few
months, each one had been discussed repeatedly over several years.  However, Members now had to
start from the present situation.  There were some 24 proposals under paragraph 12(b) and the
Chairman had come up with concrete proposals for fi ve of them, so it was important to know the
broad views of the Chairman on how to deal with the remaining issues, because time was of theessence.  Regarding asking subsidiary bodies to provide technical input and further work, it should be
made quite clear that the work was technical in the sense of a substantive discussion in order to try toTN/C/M/7
Page 29
resolve the issues.  This was important because, in the past few weeks, experts from his delegation
who had attended the Customs Valuation Committee and the TRIPS Council had reported that the
discussions in the these bodies had been on which of the TNC Chairman's 5 suggested options should
be applied to the proposals.  This was not a substantive discussion, and he had instructed his
colleagues not to go to these meetings because it was up to the TNC to decide this.  So his delegationhoped the various bodies which were to consider these issues further would receive a clear instruction
from the TNC to deepen understanding on the issues be fore them so that the they could be resolved.
139. All the implementation issues, both the 35 sent to the negotiating bodies and the 24 he had
already referred to, were part of the single undertaking, so Members had the responsibly to deal with
them.  However, no-one had given a guarantee that all the implementation issues would be solved in
accordance with the original proposals.  Norway looked at the implementation proposals in the same
way as other negotiating proposals.  For example, in the antidumping negotiations in the RulesNegotiating Group, more than 30 issues had been taken up, and Members would gradually develop
negotiating proposals on these and maybe more issues.  The proponents had no guarantee of success
on each and every one of these proposals, but what they did expect, and would insist on, was to have a
serious negotiation on them.  At this stage, implementation issues had to be seen as negotiating
proposals, and they should be taken up like the 35 issues in the Rules Group for they were in the samecategory.  For these issues, Members should not wait too long before resolving them or reaching some
other conclusions.
140. The representative of Bulgaria supported the statements made by Cuba, Egypt, the European
Communities, Hungary, India and Lesotho on dealing with the outstanding implementation issues at
the level of the TNC.  His delegation also agreed with Norway that discussion of which of theChairman's 5 options should apply to each issue was not a substantive discussion.  In fact, his
delegation would go further – none of the Chairman's 5 options were proposals for appropriate action
in the sense of paragraph 12(b) of the Doha D eclaration.  Appropriate action under paragraph 12(b)
would be either a substantive solution which would come as a result of the Chairman's option 1, or a
consensus decision on taking no further action.
141. The Chairman's five options were not equal.  Options 1 and 2 were different from options 3, 4
and 5.  In making proposals under option 4 for some issues, the Chairman had not proposed
appropriate action.  In fact, as the United States had said, it was the TNC which was now responsible
for taking appropriate action.  This responsibility did not mean simply holding a discussion on which
option to take, rather it meant taking appropriate action and this was now the Chairman's
responsibility.  The Chairman should not think that he had proposed appropriate action if his proposal
concerned options 3, 4 and 5.  His delegation joined others in calling on the Chairman to engage,either himself or through trusted persons, in a substantive discussion of those possibilities for
appropriate action which could only be the result of substantive discussion.  His delegation could not
agree to more discussions like those at the present meeting and on previous occasions since these had
served no purpose.  There should be some value-added in the future discussions that the Chairman, or
other Chairpersons on his behalf, would conduct.
142. His delegation wished to remind the Chairman that his previous consultation on his 5 options
had not been decided by Members.  The Chairman had not been mandated to hold the consultations,
and he had held them on the basis of his overall responsibilities as Chairman of the TNC.  His
delegation wished to underline that the Chairman's overall responsibility as Chairman of the TNC was
not just about which option to choose, but also about appropriate action.  His delegation would expectsubstantive proposals from the Chairman based on a substantive discussion.  His delegation would
also expect some real substance, or value-added, and not just more of what had taken place in the
previous two months.
143. The representative of New Zealand said he had often thought that one was getting close to
agreement when there were clear signs of confusion.  When delegations were not quite sure whether
they liked a proposal or not, then balance could be close.  As an example, Hungary had said thatTN/C/M/7
Page 30
certain countries were blocking a procedural solution, when that was precisely what it was doing
itself.  Thus, from the statements made, he believed that Members were not quite at the point of
finding a procedural solution, but they might not be all that far from it and perhaps a little more time
was needed.  Members needed a procedural solution to allow progress to be made on one or two very
important substantive problems, and further consultants building on the Chairman's ideas mightachieve that.
144. The representative of Malaysia said his delegation had been encouraged that the Chairman
had decided to assume a proactive role in dealing with these issues.  All Members, both developing
and developed countries, were aware that this area had to be addressed effectively, and it had
remained unresolved for many years.  At this st age, it was important to remember that there was a
variation in approaches towards dealing with implementation issues.  In the past, Members had had
the understanding that all implementation issues  would be referred to subsidiary bodies for
consideration, followed by a report to the TNC for appropriate action.  As the Chairman had pointed
out, these issues were no longer with the subsidiary bodies, but were now under the auspices of the
TNC, under the Chairman's leadership and guidance.  This was quite different from the past.  These
issues were now at the TNC level, and Members were trying to find appropriate action – how to deal
with these issues.  The Chairman had taken a realistic and pragmatic approach in dealing with them,and his delegation was supportive of at least his approach.  However, it was clear that a large number
of delegations were not ready accept these issues being referred back to subsidiary bodies, and his
delegation believed that they were right.  The notion of referring the issues back to subsidiary bodies
for further discussion was not acceptable because many delegations believed that the issues set out by
the Chairman had been dealt with substantively.
145. Malaysia did not agree that all issues had to be put on an equal footing, because it was
possible to find a solution for some issues.  Malaysia could not accept the view that if the issue of
geographical indications was not treated in a particular way then there would be no flexibility to deal
with the other issues.  There were tirets that could be resolved, and this had to happen.  He agreed
with New Zealand that one needed to be clear as to the intent and objective of referring issues back tosubsidiary bodies and that further consultations could lead to a shared understanding on how to do this
and what kind of inputs were needed from those bodies.  It was for this reason that his delegation
supported the Chairman's approach.  It was up to the Chairman to identify the issues, which he had
done, and it was now a matter of clarifying the process to be put in place.  If this clarification could be
provided, then a compromise could be reached.
146. The representative of Jamaica said her delegation would not stand in the way of further
technical work being done in subsidiary bodies if it was judged that there was a realistic possibility
that some proposals could, in this way, be advanced towards a solution.  However, her delegation had
deep reservations about taking such a decision wit hout having a full picture of what the process would
be for the full consideration of other proposals that fell under paragraph 12(b).  Her delegation
believed that there should be clarity of process for all proposals, although it recognized that the
outcome of the consideration of each issue could not be predetermined.
147. The representative of Canada said there did indeed appear to be confusion as to the meaning
of appropriate action and the procedures to arrive at appropriate action.  Canada was not aware that
the Chairman or anyone else had suggested that the options he had put forward and the proposals he
had made at the present meeting on procedures to advance some of these issues were in themselves
the appropriate action required by paragraph 12(b).  His delegation believed that they were designedto move the work to the point where the TNC could take decisions for that appropriate action.  Doubts
had been expressed about whether there was anything to be gained by referring some of these issues,
under the auspices and within time-frames decided by the TNC, back to the appropriate bodies for
further technical consideration.  He wished to recall the example of TBT and also the precedent
Members had set in the Committee and in the TNC on SPS.  In the pre-Doha consideration ofimplementation proposals, Canada had stood almost alone in objecting to two SPS proposals because
of its serious concerns that they could interfere with necessary health and safety actions that wouldTN/C/M/7
Page 31
have to be taken in Canada for the protection of Canadian consumers.  As a result, those proposals did
not go forward in Doha, but in the period after Doha they were considered in the SPS Committee.
Canada had brought in experts from Ottawa to ex plain and work out with the proponents of those two
tirets the means by which their legitimate concerns could be addressed and those two tirets had
subsequently been resolved to the satisfaction of the TNC.  His delegation believed that the sameapproach, which was already under way in the TBT Committee, could equally be applied to the two
tirets in the TBT area.  Canada did not understand why it would not be profitable, and a sensible use
of time, to have that discussion continue in the TBT Committee under the auspices of, and with
deadlines from, the TNC and with a report back to the TNC so Members could take decisions on those
two tirets.
148. The representative of the European Communities said that perhaps one of the difficulties in
arriving at acceptable procedural conclusions for the outstanding implementations issues was the
different interpretations of paragraph 12 of the Doha Declaration.  This was not the only case where
differing interpretations of the Doha Declaration existed.  Members had to live with this, but what was
important was how to move the process forward because all those issues which might be part of
different interpretations would be part of the single undertaking.  In the Chairman's consultations, his
delegation had tried to suggest ways to move the process forward.
149. The United States, Australia and others had said that among the outstanding implementation
issues, there were issues on which there was a substantive disagreement, but his delegation did not see
a problem, because there were many issues in the overall negotiations on which there was substantive
disagreement.  But he wondered if that was a reason not to engage in serious discussions on those
issues.  His delegation had referred to an equal footing, which meant that, as a starting-point, alloutstanding implementations issues should have unif orm treatment, but as Hungary had said, that did
not mean that the outcome of the discussions was necessarily uniform.  The Community would not
advocate a uniform outcome for all outstanding implementation issues, since there were quite a few
issues for which it was not a proponent and where it had serious difficulties, but the Community was
willing to engage in the discussions.  In the co nsultations, his delegation had suggested that Members
should not prejudge their differing interpretations of paragraph 12, but rather stipulate that all the
issues were at the level of the TNC.  This was indeed the case since 1 January and no-one could
contest that.  Members should also stipulate that they would engage in a serious discussion on each
and every outstanding implementation issue.  His delegation had to acknowledge that a number of
delegations were not ready to engage in a serious discussion on some issues, but it should be
stipulated nonetheless.  This did not mean that Members agreed on any issue or any outcome;  that
could only be the result of serious discussions.
150. The Community believed that all the issues should  be addressed at the level of the TNC, and
he had given several examples of this – at this meeting, in every TNC, in a Dedicated Session, in a
Friends of the Chair mode and, within this framework, Members might ask for focused input from a
technical body.  At least in this way, no-one would be prejudging the position of any delegation, and
Members would have a uniform treatment and colle ctive endeavour to move the process forward.
151. The representative of Hungary, referring to the statement by New Zealand about there being
confusion, said that his delegation understood the Chairman's proposal to mean that 5 issues were to
be decided upon from a process point of view, while the majority of the issues, some of which were
extremely important to Hungary, would be left fo r further consultations, which did not have a time-
limit.  When his delegation had said it could not agree with such a piecemeal approach, it did notmean that it had a problem with treating each issue on its merits in the final outcome.  What his
delegation could not agree with was the procedural blockage by others who had said they were not
even ready to discuss some issues in a substantive manner.  However, his delegation did agree with
New Zealand on the need for further informal consul tations by the Chairman to find a solution to this
situation.  At the present meeting, conditions were clearly not right for a consensus decision, so itwould be useful to consult about the treatment on an equal footing of each issue, and a practical
solution would be to keep this item of the TNC open, as suggested by the CEFTA Plus informal groupTN/C/M/7
Page 32
of countries under agenda item 1.  In this way, the TNC could be kept on call until the consultations
had led to a solution.
152. The representative of Korea said his country was not fully convinced of the benefit of a
horizontal approach under the TNC because many of the issues were of a technical nature and
contained differences in character and degree of impact on the rights and obligations of the Members.Korea believed that each implementation issue had its own merits to be reviewed individually.
However, in the absence of pragmatic and realistic approaches by the Members, his delegation
supported the Chairman's proposal which used different courses of action for different tirets under the
auspices of the TNC and to come back to at the next TNC for appropriate action.  Implementation
issues should remain a key part of the Work Programme, but at the same time they should not be a
stumbling block to the entire DDA negotiations.  Given the constrains of time and resources,
Members should take a practical approach rather than insisting on unrealistic ambitions.
153. The representative of the Slovak Republic said that, after listing carefully to all the
statements, if procedural solutions were not poss ible, he wished to propose that Members focus on
option 1 in the TNC to try to resolve the problems.
154. The representative of Bulgaria supported the proposal by the Slovak Republic, and said the
Chairman had a mandate to follow up on the proposal and did not need agreement by all Members for
this.  As Chairman of the committee charged with taking appropriate action, the Chairman should
make substantive proposals on how to solve the issues.  Members did not have to agree with the
Chairman's proposals, which was their prerogat ive, but proposals which called for immediate
discussion would not take Members very far.  His delegation suggested that the Chairman follow the
proposal to leave the present agenda item open, th at he should convene Dedicated Sessions, that he
charge persons he trusted with consultations, and that he should try to work out substantive solutions
on implementation issues.  On each issue, his delegation guessed there would be a different proposal.
But it should be clear that the present situation was that Members were engaged in an exercise which
was a procedural blockage.
155. The representative of New Zealand, referring to the suggestion by Bulgaria that the Chairman
hold consultations to reach substantive decisions on all the issues, said that it would not be a course of
action his delegation would recommend.
156. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation fully shared the view that Members
should depart from procedures and enter into substance.
157. The representative of China said Members had dealt with these issues in the subsidiary bodies
for more than a year, yet they had reached a solution in only one area, an SPS issue which was of no
great significance, while other issues were still pending.  This result had disappointed manydeveloping Members.  In order to have an earlier and overall solution to this development issue,
China agreed that the issues should be dealt with by the Chairman of the TNC either in Dedicated
Sessions or by the Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies as Friends of the TNC Chairman.
158. The Chairman said that his aim in the consultations he had conducted had been to obtain
results in terms of solutions.  He had been looking not only for procedural solutions, but also for
substantive ones in line with the agreement by Ministers on appropriate action.  What he had set out in
his opening remarks was in no way intended to represent final appropriate action.  He had tried to find
ways to advance towards such action, but solutions in that sense were not yet available, and he did not
know when they would be.  In the discussion at the present meeting, he was greatly disappointed to
see that, although there had been some efforts to move toward a process of finding solutions, noprogress was possible in general terms.  This was difficult to accept, but he would not relent in his
efforts, and he would continue to challenge delegations to find solutions.  Finding solutions was
precisely what delegations had to do, not use tactics to slow the process or to achieve other goals.TN/C/M/7
Page 33
159. No-one questioned that all the issues were before the TNC, which was clearly the case since
the end of 2002.  But for him, that was not good enough.  Solutions had to be found before Cancún.
That was why he had tried to suggest ways to move forward on some issues.  But in doing this, it had
not been his intention to treat any issue at a lesser level than any other.  Using option 4 as a basis for
some of his proposals had not been intended as just a way of keeping things in motion.  He hadreflected carefully on what he had heard in his consultations, and had believed that there was a
realistic way forward by giving another chance to some of the relevant bodies to consider the issues
further within a specific time-frame and under the responsibility of the TNC, which would retain its
decision-making role.  He had also foreseen that delegations would be able to request that any issue
be returned to the TNC at any time, and that he would be making interim progress reports to the TNC
before the issue came back to it for final consideration.
160. He did not agree that his proposed approach had been a piecemeal one, or that it had involved
fragmentation.  It had been carefully thought out, and had been based on his consultations, which, in
the end, had been substantive.  But it was the Members who had the final say in this matter.  He hoped
that this deadlock on implementation would not be symptomatic for the whole Doha Work
Programme.  However, he feared it might be if Members continued like this.  He did not believe that
his proposals would have prejudiced any of the issues concerned, on the contrary, he would havethought that it would have increased the pressure to deal with them substantively.
161. At this stage, there appeared to be no alternative but to face up to a continuing lack of
convergence on appropriate TNC action.  He urged all delegations to reflect seriously on this
situation.  For his part, he was prepared to go on consulting informally with delegations, with the
invaluable help of the DDGs and calling as necessary on the expertise of Chairpersons of relevantbodies, to try to find a path towards agreement that all might be prepared to take.  But he could not
impose a solution on Members or consult in a vacuum.  To agree on how to handle these issues,
Members would need more pragmatism and more co mmitment to finding solutions than there had
been so far.  He hoped that, in his further consultations, he would be able to detect some signs of the
flexibility needed on all sides.
162. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the report by the Chairman and of the
statements.
163. In closing the meeting, the Chairman said the next meeting of the TNC would take place on
4 April 2003.
__________