RESTRICTED  
  
TN/CTD/M/60  
 
15 December  2023 
(23-8626) Page: 1/14 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Sixtieth Special Session    
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 23 NOVEMBER  2023  
Chairperson : H.E. Ambassador Kadra Ahmed Hassan (Djibouti)  
A ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ .....................  1 
B G-90 DOCUMENT FOR THE SPECIAL SESS ION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE  
AND DEVELOPMENT ON 10 AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL 
TREATMENT PROPOSALS (JOB/TN/CTD/2 – JOB/TNC/106)  ................................ .............  2 
(I) G-90 Document for the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development on 
Special and Differential Treatment Proposals on the Agreement on the application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary measures (SPS agreement) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to  Trade (TBT 
agreement) (JOB/TN/CTD/3 – JOB/TNC/110; JOB/TN/CTD/3/CORR.1 – JOB/TNC/110/CORR.1)  ..... 2 
a) Statement by the facilitator (Singapore) for the G -90 Agreement -Specific proposals on the 
SPS and TBT Agreements on the work undertaken in the past few months.  ................................  3 
b) Exchange of views on the next steps regarding the G -90 Agreement -Specific proposals on the 
SPS and TBT Agreements.  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 
(II) Update by the G-90 on the status of preparation of the textual submissions regarding the other 
eight Agreement -specific proposals  ................................ ................................ ....................  11 
C OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 14 
 
A ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairperson  said that the draft agenda for the 60th Special Session of the Committee on 
Trade and Development (CTD SS) was circulated in Airgram WTO/AIR/TN/CTD/1 2 of 
13 November  2023.  
2. The agenda was adopted .  
3. The Chairperson  said that, on 21 November 2023, a CTD  SS document symbol was added to 
a communication from the United States. The communication was titled "Highlights of Activities on 
Better Integration of Developing Countries in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade ". The CTD  SS document 
symbol was TN/CTD/W/34 . She noted that United States may wish to say a few words on this 
communication during the meeting.  She went on to  inform Members that, the pr evious  evening, the 
G90 had submitted to the Secretariat textual submissions relating to three of their 
Agreement -specific proposals  (ASPs) . These were the ASP s concerning Section B of 
GATT  Article  XVIII, the Agreement  on Trade -Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) , and Article  66.2 
of the Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ( TRIPS ) relating to 
transfer of technology. The documents would  be circulated shortly after the meeting. She believe d 
that the G90 representative w ould refer to these documents as part of the update to be provided 
under the second  sub-item of Agenda Item  B. She ha d also been told that the G90 intend ed to make 
additional submissions in the next week or two.  TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 2 - 
 
  B G-90 DOCUMENT  FOR THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND 
DEVELOPMENT ON 10 AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
PROPOSALS  (JOB/TN/CTD/2  – JOB/TNC/106 ) 
(I) G-90 Document for the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
on Special and Differential Treatment Proposals on the agreement on the application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ( SPS Agreement) and the Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade (TBT A greement ) (JOB/TN/CTD/3 – JOB/TNC/110 ; 
JOB/TN/CTD/3/CORR.1  – JOB/TNC/110/CORR.1 ) 
4. The Chairperson  recalled that, in paragraph 2 of the Outcome Document from the 
Twelfth  WTO Ministerial Conference (MC12) – contained in documents WT/MIN(22)/24  and 
WT/L/1135  – Ministers re affirmed the special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions for 
developing country Members and least developed countries ( LDCs) as an integral part of the WTO 
and its Agreements. They  stated that S&D in WTO Agreements should be precise, effective, and 
operational. In the same paragraph, they also instructed officials to continue to work on improving 
the application of S&D in the CTD SS and other relevant venues in the WTO as agreed, and report 
on progress to the General  Council  (GC) before MC13. These instructions had provided the guidance 
for the work in the CTD  SS since MC12. She also recalled that, since the beginning of 2023, 
two submissions by the G90 had been circulated. The first submission, contained in documents 
JOB/TN/CTD/2  and JOB/TNC/106 , was circulated on 28 February. The submission, which was titled 
"G90 document for the CTD SS on 10 Agreement -specific special and differential treatment 
proposals", was introduced at the formal CTD SS meeting held on 20 March. At that meeting,  the 
Special Session agreed to the process laid out in Section B of the submission. The process consisted 
of a series of formal meetings to have focused discussions on each of the ten G90 proposals – 
starting with the ASPs on the Agreement on the Applicati on of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(SPS Agreement ) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade ( TBT Agreement ) – and 
complemented as necessary by informal meetings and workshops. The document outlining this 
process continued to provide the cont ext for the work envisaged by the G90 in the post -MC12 period 
and was reflected as the main heading of Agenda Item  B for the present meeting. At the formal 
meeting of the Special Session on 7 June, she had outlined how she intended to take forward the 
agreed process in practical terms. In particular, she had informed Members that she would be 
appointing a number of facilitators to assist her in advancing the work on the various G90 ASPs. 
The facilitators would have the task of holding informal, technical an d focused discussions with 
Members on the ASPs under their responsibility with a view to finding landing zones and areas of 
convergence. A total of five facilitators would be appointed as Members moved through the process. 
Each facilitator would have respo nsibility for two ASPs.  
5. The June meeting of the Special Session also provided the opportunity for the G90 to introduce 
their textual submissions on the ASPs related to the SPS and TBT Agreements. The textual 
submissions were circulated on 22 May in docume nts JOB/TN/CTD/3  and JOB/TNC/110 . 
A corrigendum was subsequently circulated in documents JOB/TN/CTD/3/Corr.1  and 
JOB/TNC/110/Corr.1  to correct the language in footnote 6 on page 6. This document was listed as 
the first sub -item under Agenda Item B. Under this first sub -item, the facilitator for the ASPs on the 
SPS and TBT Agreements would provide an update  on the work that had been undertaken on these 
two ASPs in the past few months. She recalled in this regard that, at the June meeting of the CTD  SS, 
she had announced Singapore as the facilitator for these two ASPs. The facilitator, Mr. Jia Jie Loh, 
had be en in touch with delegations since then. She also informed Members that she had met 
Mr. Loh before the present meeting so that he could provide her with an update on the work that 
had been done. She looked forward to the briefing that he would provide to t he Special Session. 
After Mr. Loh delivered his statement, Members would exchange views on the next steps regarding 
these two ASPs.  
6. With regard to the facilitators for the other eight ASPs, she said that she would nominate them 
as and when the additional textual submissions by the G90 on specific ASPs were circulated. As was 
mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, textual submissions by the G90 on the ASPs concerning 
Section B of GATT Article XVIII, the TRIMs Agreement and Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agre ement 
would be circulated shortly. She had also been told that the G90 intended to make additional 
submissions in the next week or two. She considered this to be good progress, which would allow 
her to nominate additional facilitators. She would remain in touch with Members on this matter. 
In any case, under the second sub -item of Agenda Item B, the G90 would provide an update on the 
status of the preparation of the textual submissions regarding the eight other ASPs. Finally, before TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 3 - 
 
  turning to the substance  of the agenda, she recalled that issues relating to S&D were extensively 
discussed during the Senior Officials Meeting, which was held in Geneva on 23 and 24 October 2023. 
In addition to addressing the question of effective S&D for the 21st century, Senio r Officials discussed 
the work of the CTD SS. In this regard, she noted that the ongoing process taking place in the 
CTD SS was welcomed. This was important political guidance for the work in the Special Session. 
She encouraged Members to seize the opportu nity to continue engaging in positive and constructive 
discussions at the present meeting and in the lead -up to MC13, with a view to having concrete 
outcomes on S&D at the Ministerial Conference.  
a) Statement by the facilitator (Singapore) for the G -90 Agreem ent-Specific 
proposals on the SPS and TBT Agreements on the work undertaken in the past 
few months.  
7. The Chairperson  invited the facilitator from Singapore to make his statement.   
8. The facilitator from Singapore  delivered the following statement1: 
9. At our last meeting in June 2023, many Members emphasized the importance of expedient 
and evidence -based discussions that would help guide textual discussions on the G90’s ASPs on SPS 
and TBT. It was also suggested that these discussions should involve tec hnical experts including 
relevant external stakeholders, as well as the Secretariat. In that regard, I have worked with 
Members to organise an informal thematic session in hybrid mode on 4 October 2023.  
10. At the thematic session, the Secretariat provided de tailed presentations on the SPS and 
TBT Agreements, including existing flexibilities within them, how the flexibilities have been 
implemented, and relevant work of the Committees. Existing flexibilities within the SPS and 
TBT Agreements include considerati on of the special needs of developing country Members in the 
preparation and application of SPS and TBT measures, provision of technical assistance  (TA), and 
facilitation of active participation of developing country Members in relevant international 
organ isations. We have also learnt that both the SPS and TBT Committees have regularly reviewed 
on a triennial basis the implementation of the Agreements, including S&D provisions. It was noted 
that many of the S&D provisions are arrangements between Members an d do not involve the 
Secretariat. In these cases, there would be no comprehensive data on the utilisation of these 
flexibilities. Nonetheless, Members are encouraged to report on their TA activities during the regular 
meetings of the SPS and TBT Committees . Data on notifications ' comment periods and adopted 
measures ' transition periods is incomplete as Members do not always clearly specify these periods 
and requests for extensions are typically made and handled bilaterally between Members.  
11. Relevant initiati ves that the SPS and TBT Committees have adopted include the e -Ping digital 
tool for SPS and TBT notifications, and TA programmes such as the Transparency Champions 
initiative and the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF). In addition, there are several 
international and bilateral funds,  including the trust funds of the international standard setting 
bodies. It was noted that these initiatives are demand -driven and seek to help developing Members 
with capacity building on their notification author ities and enquiry points, as well as in the 
formulation and application of SPS and TBT measures, including the adoption of international 
standards, in their own territories.  
12. We also benefitted from several developing country Members sharing their specific 
experiences and challenges in the field of SPS and TBT, including difficulties in adapting to other 
Members ' higher SPS and TBT requirements and standards. Some challenges highlighted with 
respect to handling notifications include capacity constraints, tur nover of relevant officials/experts, 
and an inactive participation of private sector. On TA, some Members have called for programmes 
to be more needs -based and results -driven, including on complying with new SPS and TBT measures 
in their export markets. Th ere were also suggestions to look at improving developing country 
Members ' participation in the WTO and relevant international organisations, using new digital tools 
in addressing some of the transparency challenges, and better tracking and active involvem ent of 
the Secretariat on the implementation of the Agreements ' S&D provisions.  
 
1 The statement was circulated in document JOB/TN/CTD/5 . TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 4 - 
 
  13. Following the conclusion of the workshop, the presentation slides were circulated to Members, 
and I held several consultations with Members on the next steps. Some Members unde rlined the 
importance of delivering an outcome for MC13 and would support an expedient schedule of 
discussions focused on the text of the ASPs on SPS and TBT till MC13. At the same, there were also 
Members that are of the view that it could be useful to co ntinue evidence -based discussions, 
involving relevant SPS and TBT experts, to consider the issues as well as the challenges raised at 
the thematic session. In this regard, there were suggestions to continue inviting SPS and 
TBT delegates to our discussions  as appropriate and for me, in my capacity as facilitator, to provide 
updates on our discussions to the SPS and TBT Committees as necessary. It was emphasised that 
the discussions would benefit from an active participation by all Members, as noted in the t hematic 
session where non -G90 developing country Members also contributed positively to the experience 
sharing exercise. Some Members also suggested that future meetings should continue to have a 
clear agenda that is circulated in advance to Members to all ow for their preparations. I am 
encouraged by the collegial and constructive spirit of Members to further work on the ASPs on 
SPS and TBT, and look forward to continue working with Members for concrete outcomes.  
14. The Special Session  took note of the stateme nt by the facilitator  from Singapore .  
b) Exchange of views on the next steps regarding the G -90 Agreement -Specific 
proposals on the SPS and TBT Agreements.  
15. The Chairperson  opened the floor to allow Members to exchange views on the next steps 
regarding the G90 ASPs on the SPS and TBT Agreements .  
16. The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
17. We carefully listened to the report from the facilitato r and thank him for the hard work that 
he put into the arrangements over the past few months.  The United States has been and will continue 
to be actively engaged in discussions on the G90 proposals. We think that making good on the goal 
of ensuring that S &D is precise, effective and implementable means identifying targeted and 
individualized solutions on the basis of Member -specific needs. Such an approach strikes a delicate 
balance between maintaining the broader value of WTO disciplines on one side while best enabling 
us to support individual Member development objectives. This has been our framework of reference 
in reviewing the SPS and TBT proposals over the past few months . Therefore, as we prepare to 
review the remaining ASPs, our expectation is that w e base the discussion on the analysis of facts 
on the ground about where specific difficulties may exist.  We also intend to bring additional expert 
voices to the table to illustrate ways to successfully address challenges to implementation.  
18. The representa tive of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
19. I would like to thank the  facilitator  for the hard work. It  is much appreciated and was much 
needed. The European Union is of the view that the thematic session on the application of 
the SPS and TBT Agreements held on 4 October was very useful and productive  to understand the 
issues that developing countries are facing in the field of notifications, implementation and TA. We 
would welcome further such informal and frank discussions that provid e the opportunity to share 
experiences and approaches regarding the implementation of  the S&D provisions in 
the SPS and TBT Agreements. Events like this also provide an opportunity to share information 
among Members about available tools, TA program mes and other initiatives to ensure that LDCs and 
other developing Members can profit from these opportunities.  The thematic session also provides 
a different perspective on how working practices, practical tools  – including digital tools  – could be 
improved to e nsure that existing flexibilities could be operationalized better, to ensure that  LDCS  
and other developing Members  can profit or benefit from these opportunities. Moreover, the 
European Union is of the view that it would be useful to strengthen the eviden ce base when it comes 
to issues such as commenting periods, extensions granted, implementation periods or the use of TA. 
In the area of TA, this may be a little more the case in the area of TBT relative to SPS .  
20. The objective for us remains to understand how the issues underlying the G90 proposals can 
be effectively addressed without reopening the Uruguay Round Agreements, which in our view would 
be a lengthy and uncertain endeavour. The European Union stands ready  to build on the experience 
that we have now gained and work towards a collection of best practices that could focus on 
improving the implementation of S&D in the SPS and TBT Agreements  – including as regards digital TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 5 - 
 
  tools and T A program mes – as a pra gmatic and practical way to better operationalize existing 
flexibilities without impeding the objectives of the relevant Agreements. For instance, in the 
SPS Agreement  the objective will remain to protect human, animal and plant health.  The Chair asked 
about the way forward. There is fierce competition at the moment for available time . However,  we 
are available for starting or continuing such work on SPS and TBT issues straightaway and also 
beyond MC13. However, a t this point in time, we will not b e able to simultaneously conduct all the 
necessary technical work on several ASPs beyond SPS and TBT . We would urge the proponents to 
bear this in mind. A possible way to capture progress that we are making and the work yet to be 
done could conceivably tak e the form of an outcome at MC13, which we are keen to achieve, focusing 
on pragmatic solutions without affecting the legal text of the Agreements. This could even include a 
document already integrating best practices, as well as a mandate for further tech nical discussions 
in all competent WTO bodies and also in areas that we have so far not been able to cover in sufficient 
detail.  
21. The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
22. I appreciate the effort s of the facilitator , including the convening of the thematic session  on 
4 October  focusing on transparency and technical aspect s. It was  a very useful  event, with a lot of 
information  shared . In relation to  the specific G90 proposal s – for example, the 90-day comment 
period and the 12-month interval for implementation and operation  – we clearly understand that the 
SPS and TBT experts indicated that there is  room to address the issues  in a number of 
ways - including by using digital tools such as ePing , ensuring individual coordination through inquiry 
points , and implementing TA schemes , without changing the rights and obligations in the current 
Agreement s. It was also recogni zed that a process involving experts from each relevant field is 
essential to under stand the necessity and appropriateness of the proposal s and in considering a 
practical solution. The session was useful in the sense that the WTO Secretariat  staff in charge of 
SPS and TBT  issues , as well as Members  and officials from other international organi zations , 
delivered presentations which served as a good start to evidence -based discussions. On the other 
hand, it was regrettable that there was not enough time for the questions and answers  session , due 
to the very rich presentation s from the participants. It is  difficult to say whether Members  have 
reached a common understanding o n the issue s raised in the G90 proposal s and how to address 
them, including finding room to address the practical issues already mentioned. It would be beneficial 
to continue evidence -based discussions for Members  to reach a common understanding on the pros 
and cons of the proposal s. Regarding the next step s, we support the continuation of the work in the 
CTD SS in order to report to the GC ahead of MC13 , and therefore  to implement paragraph 2 of the 
MC12 Outcome Document in good faith. On the other hand, we also recogni ze that it is essential to 
include experts in the relevant fields, including  SPS and TBT, in discussions to examine where the 
problem s lie and how to address them. It is i mportant to continue the work on the discussion t hemes  
for the two G90 proposals without prejudging the concrete result s by MC13, given the current lack 
of common understanding on where the problem s lie and how to deal with them.   
23. The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
24. I would like to thank the facilitator for the factual presentation  of the discussion that was held 
on 4 October. Members have received  a Ministerial  mandate to make S& D more precise, effective 
and operational. We kn ow that there are issues  and challenges  associated with S&D . There is a 
comprehensive proposal before us from  the G90, which is full of evidence . My delegation  invites  the 
Members  that are seeking evidence to go through the proposal carefully.  There is evidence not only 
in terms of what the G90 is saying , but also in terms of the work of other international organizations.  
Further eviden ce was presented at the thematic session on 4 October, including from India, which 
brought out the challenges  associated wi th SPS and TBT measures and where the problems lie . 
Members could continue looking for evidence for years. However, it is well recognized that there are 
problems and challenges associated with certain S&D provision s. This has been echoed in this body 
throughout the year, as well as in the development retreat in February and the Senior Officials 
Meeting in October . The  requests  in terms of flexibilities, timeline s and  capacity -building are the 
bare minimum requirement s to make S& D more precise, effective and operational. Instead of just 
delaying discussions on the proposal s relating to the SPS and TBT Agreements , my delegation 
suggest s that Members  should now move towards negotiation s on the textual  suggestions  by the 
G90 so that we have a concrete deliverable at MC13 to meet the aspirations of developing countries 
on these issues.  Furthermore, since three new submissions by the G90 will be circulated shortly, 
Members should start working on these submissions as well. W e urge the Members  to not keep on 
harping on the point which we have heard so many times about the need for evidence -based TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 6 - 
 
  discussion s, but instead to move ahead with the objective of reaching tangible outcome s on the 
G90 proposals.  
25. The representative of New Zealand  delivered the following statement:  
26. I would like to thank the Chair  for the focus at this meeting on these important proposals. 
I would also like to thank the facilitator  for the excellent work in convening the thematic session on 
4 October and for his report today. New Zealand participated in the thematic session , and we found 
it very interesting and productive.  We knew from our SPS and TBT colleagues the amount of work 
that ha s been done in th ese Committees in looking at practical solutions, but it was very helpful to 
have that information consolidated in one event . Like Japan, we felt that we didn 't really get enough 
time in that session, despite the excellent presentati ons, to draw out from the presentations and the 
ideas that came from the floor some practical ways forward to address some of the very real issues 
raised in th ese areas. Like India, we are very keen to see tangible outcomes from this work . 
We believe  that there were some very good ideas that came forward in that thematic session from 
delegations and from the work of the Secretariat. For example, there was a  suggestio n by Brazil for 
a mentoring system to be put in place in relation to some aspects of the TBT  and SPS Agreements. 
Egypt made a suggestion for regional engagement with some of the key international 
standard -setting bodies that the SPS and the TBT Agreements draw on. In 2008, 
New Zealand  propose d a mentoring system, specifically to help LDCs to meet their transparency 
obligations under the SPS  Agreement . The system had some success at the time.  There was some 
good work done between our agencies and other expert agencies with LDC partner countries.  We 
understand  that this is no longer happening, but  as suggested by Brazil, this might be  a practical 
way to deliver in a reasonably short period of time to address some of the issues.  Other possibilities 
may come from work in the three  standard -setting b odies. For example , in the context of the 
World  Animal Health Organi sation, New Zealand has funded three significant biosecurity  capacity  
and capability -building initiatives in the Pacific that will continue at least until 2025. There is 
therefore  work goi ng on at the regional level under the specific dedicated expert bodies, which is a 
point that Egypt made  in the thematic session  as a possible practical way forward. My delegation 
therefore suggests that it would be useful to have more time to focus on and  draw out from the very 
valuable foundation that the thematic session provided, with a view to developing some practical 
ideas that might yield tangible outcomes in the short to medium term. We would see that as a 
valuable next step in the process.  
27. The re presentative of Fiji, on behalf of the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific Sates 
(OACPS), delivered the following statement:  
28. The African, Caribbean and Pacific ( ACP) Group would like to thank the Chair for  the leadership 
in steering the work of the CTD  SS and would like to recogni ze the efforts of the Secretariat. We  also 
thank the facilitator  for his able leadership in facilitating the two ASPs and for the work he has done. 
Regarding the process, the Group app reciates the inclusive and transparent manner in which the 
discussions have been held . This includ es the workshop and the cross -Committee collaboration in 
the presence of the SPS and TBT Secretariat s, with relevant expert s from Members . It was  very 
useful in our understanding and appreciation of the Committees ' work and the relation  to S&D . 
It remains critical that our understanding of S &D is not limited to focus only on TA and 
capacity  building . It should be more elaborative  and should take into account th e changing economic 
and trading environment that countries  are in. We observed that a  number of presentations  focused 
on TA and capacity building from both the Secretariat and developed country Members . We believe 
this is also geared towards assisting in upscaling their technical infrastructure to fulfil the obligations 
in their regulatory process es and treatment of impo rts into their own market s in a more targeted 
manner. We also heard from  the South Centre, the United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development (UNCTAD ), India  and South Africa, among others . Their presentations were very useful 
in setting the context on the r eal impact of measures , which indicates how and why flexibility plays 
a critical role.  We have taken good note of the facilitator 's report,  and in particular the constructive 
engagement , which we believe is a collaborative exercise . We look forward to enga ging further on 
how to advance the discussions in relation to the two ASPs.  Noting that time is not on our side, the 
Group would like to seek the Chair's guidance on how you plan to progress and expedite the 
discussion s for a meaningful outcome in the form  of a draft text . We would like to know how you 
intend to move forward to ensur e that Members  respond to paragraph 2  of the  
MC12  Outcome  Document and have tangible outcomes at MC13.  TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 7 - 
 
  29. The representative of South Africa , on behalf of the G90,  delivered the following statement:  
30. We take this opportunity to thank the facilitator  for the excellent work in facilitating continued , 
focused engagements on the proposals tabled by the G90.  We would like to reassure the Chair of 
our full support for the process you have adopted, including the facilitator -led process, to ensure 
efficient and productive engagements on the G90 ASPs. In addition, w e would like to express our 
sincere gratitude to the Secretariats responsible for the TBT and SPS Agreements who made sure 
the workshop held in October  was productive, illuminating  and constructive.  Thanks also go to the 
presenters from various Members  and other international organizations. Having the right experts in 
the room  from the Membership , including virtually , proved very useful.  We welcome the deliberations 
at the workshop and  the cross -Committee collaboration , which included the TBT and 
SPS Secretariats . This bode s well for future submissions , including those that have just been made . 
We would like to highli ght that, even as we engage in this exercise, our focus on S&D is not a narrow 
one confined to TA and capacity building . It includes the core constraints and solutions advanced in 
the G90 's proposed text s which are of a more substantive nature. A large part of the thematic session 
tended to veer towards issues relating to TA  and capacity -building activities to assist 
developing  countries to meet their obligations under the TBT and SPS Agreement s. It was more 
about t he market access of others into developed -country  markets, whereas the G90 proposals are 
speaking of the capacity issues and resource constraints with regard to accessing markets, 
particularly those of developed countr y Members . A large portion of the chal lenges faced and 
articulated by the G90, including in the ASPs, is targeted at ensuring market access  in a more 
targeted and impactful manner. We found that the presentations by UNCTAD, the South Centre,  and 
the representatives of South Africa  and India, w ere quite illuminating on the real impact of measures 
being adopted in developed economies, and how this may be addressed through the improvements 
proposed by the G90.  This also showed how the existing flexibilities are couched in best endeavour 
language a nd lacking in precision, which affects predictability and certainty.  
31. Allow us to recall some of the substantive elements of the proposals on SPS and TBT that the 
G90 has tabled . First, longer time periods for developing countries and LDCs facing 
capacity  constraints to provide comments on proposed SPS measures, technical regulations or 
standards by developed country Members, or developing countries in a position to do so.  Second, 
longer time frames for compliance accompanied by TA and capacity building by a developed country 
to developing countries and LDCs to ensure no or minimal disruptions to their exports. Some of 
these measures that are being introduced increasingly requir e significant infrastructure outlays and 
complex systems that may not be readily available in developing countries , where there are real 
constraints. Third, compensatory adjustment support by developed countries to adversely affected 
developing countries and LDCs in the case of urgent implementation of SPS or TBT measures to 
assist the m to maintain their market share in those markets.  Finally, TA and capacity building, which 
I will not downplay at all, is very important . It would apply not only to the case of developing 
countries meeting  their obligations, but also in assist ing them to retain this market 
access  - especially  in developed countries, as new and more complex regulations are adopted.  In 
our view, the evidence gathered from different experts during the workshop, both from the 
Secretariat and from others , provided suff icient technical details. This information,  coupled with 
information and data included in the G90 submission , provide s a good basis for Members  to move 
into text -based , focused discussions.  In this regard, allow us to propose the following next steps. 
We w ould like to propose that we move towards such text -based discussions on the basis of the 
proposals tabled by the G90. This would allow evidence and information to be tailored to the theme 
or topic at hand. The thematic session in October notably provide d Members  with enough information 
that can be aligned to structured discussions on an element -by-element basis.   
32. The G90 calls for discussions to proceed through the facilitator -led process, based on the text s 
submitted, and that th ese take place  on an A greement-by-Agreement basis with attention to core 
elements . The objective would be to explor e areas of convergence and isolate areas  of divergence. 
Invitations may be extended , as necessary , to relevant Committees – including the SPS and 
TBT Committees – to ensure constructive and productive engagement and that there is technical 
expertise at hand.  The discussions must proceed speedily and with urgency and be structured in a 
manner to achiev e concrete outcomes at MC13  – even if at least on the se two, which is just 20 % of 
the G90's ten  ASPs.  We have been listening to the calls for more and more evidence . In this regard, 
we would like to advise against going down a path to nowhere . As pointed out by India, the evidence 
has already been provided and is also available from the international organizations that do 
groundwork on these issues.  Furthermore, the very nature of the major  difficulties with existing 
S&D provisions  lie in their inaccessibility. The call s to show  evidence of attempts  that have been TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 8 - 
 
  made to use some flexibilit ies are not horizontally applicable and may be futile. We tend to be wary 
when calls for evidence start to seem like an unwillingness to engage on our proposals on their 
merits and on a technical basis.  We should be clear t hat the C TD SS remains the main forum for 
negotiations and that the facilitator -led process is aimed at supporting those discussions.  
33. The representative of Colombia  delivered the following statement:  
34. I would like to highlight that my delegation values the work of the G90, which has brought 
proposals and suggested alternatives to key issues faced not only by LDCs,  but also 
developing  countries as a whole.  These proposals have the advantage of conveying concrete ideas 
on substantive matters and issues tha t developing countries face, such as the SPS and TBT measures 
that some countries impose.  These measures can create unnecessary restrictions for the exports of 
developing countries, thus jeopardizing revenue for certain sectors and regions, and even for en tire 
countries.  I also agree with the point made earlier that this issue cannot be simplified or reduced  to 
improving notification s or having more TA and training for compliance. Th e issue goes much deeper 
than that . The real problem lies in the way these measures are being used by some countries and 
the impact they have on trade.  For the benefit not only of developing countries , but for the 
multilateral trading system  (MTS)  as a whole , there is a need to seek and support solutions so that 
SPS and TBT measu res do not create barriers to exports, as is currently the case.  I also agree that 
it is crucial to initiate specific and concrete discussions on the text s that ha ve been proposed. These 
texts are already on the table and deserve to be treated with the car e warranted by the current 
situation in the MTS.  
35. The representative of  the United States  delivered the following statement:  
36. I would like to add a few points specifically in response to the very precise suggestion that  
was made by the representative of South Africa . A discussion on specifics is indeed hard work.  It is 
hard work having to discuss and address Member -specific tangible and demonstrated needs. Yet , in 
the view of my delegation , this is the most effective way to bridge whatev er gaps exist in reviewing 
the ten ASPs.  As has been made clear all along , the United States cannot consider blanket flexibilities 
and will not agree to any text -based discussion on the ten ASPs  that are premised on blanket 
flexibilities.  Instead, we are i nterested to hear from individual Members on what they seek support 
for in meeting their development goals. We have asked this question at every opportunity in regular  
sessions  of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) , informal sessions and bilatera l 
meetings , and we will keep asking it. The United States is always in favour of  concrete steps. As a 
concrete next step , and building on the work of the facilitator, we intend to focus on what works in 
practice . We would like to invite South Africa and th e G90 members to bring to the floor of this 
Committee one or two examples of capacity -building collaborations that have helped a Member to 
address notification and commenting challenges in implementing the SPS and TBT Agreement s. This 
will be a concrete st ep to focus on what works.  
37. The representative of Nepal , on behalf of the LDC Group , delivered the following statement:  
38. The LDC Group takes note of the statement by Singapore and commends it for accepting the 
role of facilitator. We would like to recall that paragraph 2 of the MC12 Outcome Document is 
unambiguous . Ministers instructed Members to review the previous provisions relating to S&D in the 
covered Agreements,  with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective 
and operational. We have a responsibility to achieve this.  The lack of productive capacities and 
diversification of the LDC economies make them dependent on a limited number of prod ucts as well 
as a reduced number of markets. LDCs certainly benefit from tariff preference s in certain markets, 
but their exports face non -tariff barriers limiting their market share to less than 1% for total 
merchandise exports. One of the causes is the p roliferation of S PS and TBT measures, among others. 
LDCs do not have much quality infrastructure and the costs of compliance, procedures and 
information are often very high. This explains the aggregation of additional costs that exporters are 
not always ab le to bear, which makes companies  in LDCs  less competitive on international markets. 
These conditions affect the development of their entrepreneurial fabric and partly explain their 
inability to create jobs to combat unemployment and poverty.  In the absenc e of necessary support, 
it is clear that standards, technical regulations and SPS measures can constitute significant obstacles 
for exports from developing countries and LDCs to  access major international markets. 
The LDC Group calls for the incorporation of flexibilities into the S PS and TBT Agreements to ensure 
certainty, transparency and stability for developing countries and LDCs to achieve their development 
goals. Developed Members must take into account the needs of developing countries and LDCs in TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 9 - 
 
  the development of new SPS and TBT measures, in particular by granting them longer deadlines to 
react, the TA necessary to bring their production methods in line, and compensation when their 
exports are affected by new SPS or TBT measures.  To conclude, the L DC Group invites Members to 
engage in negotiations on these two G90 proposals. By doing so, they will help make WTO rules 
clearer and more predictable. This could help facilitate the real integration of developing countries 
and LDCs into the MTS.  
39. The repr esentative of Sri Lanka  delivered the following statement:  
40. My delegation would like to thank the G90 members for their proposal. We thank the facilitator 
for his excellent work and the comprehensive report . We also  thank the Secretariat for organizing 
the very useful thematic session. The information and data provided at the session were indeed very 
useful for Members'  deliberations.  Developing countries and LDCs encounter numerous challenges 
related to market access.  They need to be provided with better tools to overcome such challenges.  
The best way to help developing countries and LDCs in this regard  is to make S&D  provisions more 
precise, effective and operational.  The G90 proposal captures the most essential elements with 
regard to S&D in the SPS and TBT Agreements that need to be taken into consideration to integrate 
developing countries and LDCs into the MTS. Regarding the next step s, my delegation supports the 
idea of engag ing on deliberations based on the textual suggestions provided in the G90 proposal.  
The textual suggestions provided in the annexes of the proposal clearly indicate the type of S&D 
that should be provided to developing countries and LDCs in the  SPS and TBT Agreements.  
41. The representative of Switzerland  delivered the followin g statement:  
42. Switzerland would like to echo and support the statements made by other delegations this 
morning, specifically on the following aspects . We would like to firstly thank the facilitator for his 
valuable engagement.  Further more, as we said in pre vious meetings, we support an approach that 
is targeted and answer s needs based on evidence.  To better understand these issues, we agree  - as 
some delegations have mentioned  – on the great value of sharing experiences and best practices to 
improve the impl ementation of existing flexibilities contained in the Agreements we are examining 
today.  We would welcome further discussions on this subject and will remain engaged in finding 
ways to better include developing countries and LDCs in global trade.  However, it will be difficult for 
us to engage in parallel discussions on other ASPs at the intense pace proposed. What we consider 
equally important for the way forward is to ensure that those discussions will take place in the 
dedicated Committees. As a m atter of principle, Switzerland is of the view that strong and resilient 
multilateral rules create the best environment for the inclusion of developing countries and LDCs in 
global trade. If such rules are weakened, more vulnerable WTO Members may be the f irst to suffer 
from the unpredictability and intransparency of the trading environment.  
43. The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
44. Thank you  to the facilitator for expertly taking on th is role. Australia is committed to 
constructiv e discussions on the challenges faced by developing countries and LDCs. We have long 
supported targeted S&D measures that respond to individual country needs and that are based on 
empirical evidence. We found last month's workshop to be a very helpful star t to evidence -based 
discussions on the TBT and S PS proposals . However , it was just the start of a much longer 
conversation that we need to have to answer Members' questions , to properly consider the 
challenges underlying these ASPs and, as my colleague fro m Japan said, to reach a common 
understanding before we consider text -based negotiations. We agree  that these discussions should 
include our S PS and TBT colleagues and external experts, including the private sector if possible . 
We suggest that they should also consider why the existing flexibilities in these Agreements are not 
being used. As my colleague from New Zealand said, we would additionally  welcome an examination 
of the practical ideas put forward by several developing countries during the workshop,  including 
Brazil and Egypt, on ways to solve  their real-world problems with implementing these Agreements  
– noting  that the implementation of some of these ideas may go beyond the CTD  SS. Similar to 
comments from Switzerland and the E uropean Union , it wou ld also be difficult for my delegation  to 
engage in parallel discussions on additional new ASPs at the proposed pace.  As a final comment, 
I'd like to note how much we value the constructive tone of the discussions that Members have  had 
on the tabled ASPs . I understand that this was not the tone of the discussions in previous years on 
these exact proposals.  Given that MC13 is just three months  away and there is a big winter break 
in the middle of that, we really want to keep these discussions constructive . We wouldn't want to TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 10 - 
 
  see a situation where delegations  have to move back to old defensive positions because a rush ed 
process was adopted before Me mbers were on the same page.  
45. The representative of  the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
46. I am beginning to see some convergence under this agenda item, in the sense that Members 
want to continue and deepen the work and make as much progres s as possible by MC13 , as also 
noted at the Senior Officials Meeting in October . Members  support the facilitator and the informal 
and frank discussions that have been started. The representative from the United States has 
provided some useful specific comm ents and suggestions . The United States' submission , which  was 
issued after the thematic session , is worth reading and integrating into our discussions. 
The representative of South Africa, on behalf of the G90 , also made suggestions for more structured 
discussions and has offered tailored information along the way. On the other hand, some have 
suggested that they know why the available flexibilities are not working, and that the G90 texts are 
the adequate and best solution . However , the European Union is not convinced. What some Members  
are asking  for is not just evidence, but the opportunity to discuss and weigh such evidence together , 
with the aim of addressing the underlying needs and concerns. The European Union is available for  
such discussions and to find solutions.  Members  have made progress on SPS and TBT and need to 
make more progress. My delegation is very much engaged in the work on S&D provisions in the 
SPS and TBT Agreements, but we  are not in favour of proceeding to the  text-based negotiations that 
have been mentioned.  I don't think the proponents were referring to the text of an 
MC13 Outcome  Document, which is another issue on which we will need to spend time.  I would like 
to reiterate my delegation's  availability to deepen the discussions on SPS and TBT a s well as our 
suggestion to combine the force of available solutions and best practices to make a real difference 
for developing country partners.   
47. The representative of  the United Kingdom  delivered the following statem ent: 
48. Thanks to Singapore for the expert facilitation and to Members for the comments today. I think 
that the Chair's leadership in establishing facilitated, evidence -based discussions are the first 
genuine steps forward Members have  taken on these issues for a number of years. Indeed, I would 
probably say these have been the first steps away from the path to nowhere that  we were previously 
going down. They are a good start and have delivered a level of engagement and constructive 
dialogue that didn't previously exist. We view the 4 October workshop as just the start of this more 
constructive path and would suggest we cont inue in this direction . We've heard some practical 
suggestions from the E uropean Union and New Zealand about how to build on th is session and 
maintain momentum, all with a view to  having  tangible outcomes at MC13. The United Kingdom 
support s these suggesti ons and is fully committed and available to making as much progress as 
possible.  
49. The representative of Norway  delivered the following statement:  
50. From what I have heard today, there are some Members that are emphasizing that this is just 
the start of a longer conversation that we need  to have to reach a common understanding before 
considering text-based negotiations . We should listen to that. At the same time, there is also a call 
for results . South Africa 's suggestion to have more structured discussions of fering tailored 
information along the way  also sounds good . My delegation encourage s all Members with ideas for 
ways to tackle these defined and acknowledge d challenges in the  SPS and TBT submissions to start 
engaging and putting the m forward . I also support t he European Union's suggestion that Members  
could work on an Outcome Document for MC13 focusing on solutions to the recognized problems at 
hand.  
51. The representative of South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
52. I am now speaking as South Afri ca. I would like to thank all the delegations  that have spoken , 
and the constructive suggestions that have been made on how to  proceed with the work. This is a 
very important issue for the majority of developing countries , and I think Members  should show a  
bit of urgency  and a commitment to be open -minded when address ing the challenges that have been 
identified by the G90, which are very real. Much as we value TA and capacity building, what the 
proposals speak to is much more than that. I had earlier  indica ted the need to not go down a path 
that would introduce uncertainty or disorder in the MTS. What the G90 proposals are trying to do is TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 11 - 
 
  provide that very certainty and precision for exporters or producers in developing countries . This is 
the kind of certainty that bodes well to attract productive investment. There was a point raised by 
the E uropean Union regarding MC13 . I'm not sure if I got that clearly, and whether the reference 
was to paragraph 2 of the M C12 Outcome Document and the expectations from this paragraph. 
If that is the case, then I think it would be quite an interesting discussion to have . Listening to some 
of the interventions , it seem s that  there are  different interpretation s of what is expected . As far as 
the G90 is co ncerned , the exercise is to look at  the S&D provisions  in the identified Agreements to 
see what needs to be improve d in order to make the se S&D provisions  more precise , effective and 
operational. Turning to the point made by the United States  about wanting  to deal with the  specific 
challenges of each Member  on an individual basis , I would be interested to know how they envisage  
marrying this approach with the broader  mandate – which is about the provisions themselves, and 
which speak to the rules that would apply to all Members . I understand the debate a bout which 
Members should have access to S&D, but what I am asking  here is how the approach outlined by 
the United States can be  married to the mandate of the CTD  SS.  
53. The Special Session took note  of all interventions.  
(II) Update by the G -90 on the status of preparation of the textual submissions regarding 
the other eight Agreement -specific proposals  
54. The Chairperson  said th at, under this sub -item, the representative of the G90 w ould provide 
an update on the status of preparation of the textual submissions on the other eight ASPs. As she 
had mentioned earlier, there was important progress to report, as textual submiss ions relating to 
three ASPs w ould be circulated shortly . This  would give her the opportunity to appoint additional 
facilitators.  
55. The representative of South Africa , on behalf of the G90 , delivered the following statement :  
56. This is a short update, which wil l only repeat what has already been said. The G90  did indeed 
submit further  textual submissions on the  ASPs relating to  Section B of GATT Article  XVIII on balance 
of payments, on the TRIMs Agreement, and on Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement  relating to 
transfer of technology.  In addition, the G90 is  in the process of engagement to formulat e the textual 
submission s on the remaining ASPs. If all goes well , we will be able to submit them either together 
or separately within the next two weeks. Th ese would be on infant industry ; on accessions ; on the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ; on customs valuation, and on the Enabling 
Claus e.  
57. The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
58. I would like to thank the G90 for this  update , informing  that they have  just submitted textual 
submission s on three ASPs and that submissions on the remaining five ASPs a re being prepared . 
We look forward to work ing with them constructively in further discussion s in the Committee and 
hope that  we can expedite the process to have tangible outcomes at MC13.  
59. The representative of  the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
60. I thank the G90 for the update just provided. I would like to refer to the point I made in my 
earlier intervention about delegations not having the capacity to  address all ASPs in parallel. 
However, I congratulate the G90 for having rework ed these proposals . When Members  picked up  
again on  these ten proposals in 2021, my dele gation indicated that we are interested in knowing 
how these proposals are being updated and to see what Members  can do with them. The Chair has 
put in place a process that can help  satisfy delegations'  need to better understand how these 
proposals suggest  dealing with  the underlying concerns  that have been expressed . These are 
important issues, and that is why it will take some time for Members to address them . In the little 
time between now and MC13 , my advice would be for Members to  focus on the 
SPS and TBT proposals and see what can still be done around thos e. 
61. The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
62. I would like to express my appreciation to the G90 for this information  and ask what they see 
as a realistic timeline for discussi ons on the ASPs , as well as their priorities  – taking into account TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 12 - 
 
  the limited capacity of small delegations . Furthermore, the work  should not overlap with other 
discussions between Members taking place on issues such as TRIMs, subsidies and transfer o f 
technology.  It would be important to have manageable discussions in order to utilize the time and 
resource s available as effective ly as possible.  
63. The representative of Nepal , on behalf of the LDC Group , delivered the following statement:  
64. The LDC Group comme nds South Africa for the brief presentation of the remaining ASPs.  
Technology plays a crucial role in improving materials and human conditions. It makes it possible to 
respond urgently to health, food security and energy needs, among others.  It not only makes it 
possible to fight global crises such as pandemics and climate change, but to develop productive 
capacities, achieve the structural transformation of our economies and to promote sustainable 
development, among others.  Hence, the importance of the implementation of Article 66.2 of the 
TRIPS Agreement, which requires developed country Members to offer incentives to companies and 
institutions on their territory in order to promote and encourage the transfer of technology to 
LDC Members, to enable them to establish a solid and viable technological base. In a constructive 
spirit, the LDC Group has tabled several specific submissions to the TRIPS C ouncil through document 
IP/C/W/561  dated 6 October 2011 ; document IP/C/W/640  dated 16  February 2018 ; document  
RD/IP/24  dated 14 June 2018 and IP/C/W/664  dated 17 July 2020 to further assist 
developed  countries in reporting implementation of their obligations under Article 66.2 with greater 
clarity and precision. Some developed Members have argued that it is difficult for  governments to 
ensure technology transfer because technology is the subject of private contracts and rights. 
However, Article 66.2 is clear that the responsibility to provide adequate incentives to motivate 
technology transfer clearly falls on the develop ed country Members. Importantly, it is a firm, legally 
binding commitment made more than a quarter of a century ago by developed countries and not a 
promise of best  endeavour  efforts.  The proposal by  the G90 affords a real opportunity to developed 
countrie s to discharge their commitment under Article 66.2, to meaningfully contribute to the 
achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs ) and bridging the technological divide , 
and to send a positive signal about the role the MTS  can play in the growth and development of 
LDCs.  
65. A core concern of LDCs has been that, while some Members have made efforts, the 
implementation of Article 66.2 continues to fall short of the letter and spirit of the 
TRIPS  Agreement  mandate. In particular, some of the  policies and programmes reported by 
developed countries either barely target  LDCs or do not target them at all. The LDCs request that 
these programmes be made more effective in meeting their intended purpose. While there is regular 
reporting by developed country Members on their contribution s under Article 66.2 of 
TRIPS  Agreement, the reality is a lack of clarity in notifications on the nature of incentives and 
whether such incentives sufficiently result in technology transfer to LDCs  – including whether s uch 
incentives truly contribute to the creation of a sound and viable technological base in LDCs. Many 
notifications continue to show that recipients of incentives are not LDCs . Where LDCs are identified 
in notifications as recipients, the incentives do no t result in any transfer of technology. Further more, 
technical -capacity programmes are at times passed off as technology transfer. The LDC Group has 
developed an illustrative list  in document RD/IP/24 , which contain s the types of programmes that  
could qualify as incentives for actual transfer of technology. Developed country Members are 
encouraged to use this as a guide to implement their obligations under Article 66.2. An immediate 
action that can be taken by developed countries to implement their Article 66.2 ob ligation s is to 
subject provision of public funds to enterprises and institutions in their territories to terms and 
conditions that will facilitate transfer of technologies and related know -how to LDCs with the aim of 
creating a sound and viable technologi cal basis. Further more, developed country Members should 
establish a publicly owned technology inventory and provide incentives to enterprises and 
institutions in their territories to transfer their technologies and know -how to LDCs upon request. In 
conclu sion, the implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS  Agreement is today even more urgent 
and relevant. In addition to long -standing structural vulnerabilities compounded by deficiencies in 
international support, LDCs are having to grapple with new and esc alating challenges exacerbated 
by the COVID -19 crisis ; climate change ; shifts in trade dynamics within an ever more digital global 
economy , and a swiftly evolving technological landscape. Meanwhile, technological disparity between 
LDCs and developed and other developing countries continues to widen. Finally, we emphasize that 
all the items are important for us in the G90  submission s. TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 13 - 
 
  66. The representat ive of Fiji delivered the following statement:  
67. I would like to ask the Chair for clarification on the way forward with regard to the three new 
submissions from the G90 that will be circulated short ly, so that delegations can prepare themselves. 
It would be  useful to know how soon a meeting will be called to discuss the  three ASPs  in question . 
68. The representative of  the United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
69. I have basically the same question  as Fiji , regarding the Chair's plans for the next three  ASPs 
to be discussed,  and in particular when Members  might expect facilitators to be appointed and when 
the meetings might take place. I also have a question for the G90  regarding the three new 
submissions and the others that will be tabled shortly , which is similar to Japan's question . It would 
be helpful to get an indication of what the expectations are . Is the intention to have urgency injected 
into discussions o n all ten ASPs with a view to MC13 outcomes on all ten, or are there some  other  
thought s in terms of  prioriti zation and process ?  
70. The Chairperson  said that she would  follow the same process for the new G90 submissions as 
had been done for the submission s on the ASPs relating to  the SPS and TBT Agreements . She would  
identify the facil itators and thereafter convene  a meeting . The meeting would allow Members to 
discuss the new submissions and would allow her to introduce the facilitators, who would then take 
up the technical work with Members .  
71. The representative of South Africa , on behalf of the G90, delivered the following statement:  
72. I would like to thank the Members that gave their reactions after the brief statement we made 
on where we are with the rest of the ASPs. I might not have very spec ific answers, but I will try to 
speak in broad terms on some of the questions that have been raised. We would wish that urgency 
be applied to all the ASPs. I n that regard, our expectations on all of them have not changed. 
With regard to timelines and what is achievable by MC13, we would not want to pre -judge at this 
stage what is possible or achievable. It is for Members to get on with the work and see how far it is 
possible to go and what is deliverable.  Each of the ASPs must get due consideration on their own 
merits in order to  avoid going into sweeping generali zed responses on each of them . I truly believe 
that it should be possible to  adopt some of them without a protracted process if Members  were to 
be really objective and treat each of them on a case -by-case basis.  We support the facilitator -led 
process initiated by the Chair for the ASPs on the SPS and TBT Agreement. This may be replicated 
as necessary with the new submissions , which will be presented and considered at the appropriate 
time.  
73. The Chairperson  said that she would comment  on some of the issue s that were raised during 
the meeting . She started with the issue of evidence -based discussions. She agreed that 
evidence -based discussion s would  allow Members  to take informed decisions.  Evidence already 
existed in the literature and in the data, but she was encouraged to note that Members were now 
willing to share their experiences, and other Members were willing to listen and try to understand. 
She encourage d delegations  to continue doing this, as it was the only way that Members  could meet 
halfway and find solutions together. However, she did not believe that Members should call for 
evidence -based discussions as the prerequisite to engage on the specific issues at hand, especially 
as the G90's proposals had been around for many years.  She urged the developed countries to not 
put excessive  burden on  developing countries  and LDCs  to present  data. The Secretariat could 
possibly assist in collecting o r sharing evidence, but  it was extremely difficult for delegations already 
struggling with capacity constraints  to keep being asked to produc e evidence.  Furthermore, e vidence 
needed to be  collected and shared with the objective of assisting Members to advance in the 
discussions in the CTD SS . She encourage d Members  to continue to engage with each other, and 
not wait for formal meetings to share evidence.  She noted that she had heard some delegations 
talking about the  interpretation of mandates and differenc es of views.  In this regard, she wished to 
remind Members that the work of the CTD SS was long overdue . On the specific language in 
paragraph 2 of the MC12 Outcome Document, she encoura ged Members to not dwell too long on 
trying to interpret it. In her view, Ministers had the intention of recalibrating Members . This was  
because Members  never delivered on the repeated mandates for the work of the CTD  SS. Delegations 
needed to be pragmatic  in achieving whatever was possible by MC13 and plan for the rest. She 
urged Members to not prejudge what could be achieved by MC13 and instead be guided by the 
progress being made  in the  discussions . As Members continued to engage, it would be possible to TN/CTD/M/60  
 
- 14 - 
 
  identify the landing zones and areas of convergence.  She also noted  that the discussions in the 
CTD SS were taking place in a multilateral setting. The outcomes that would eventually come from 
the negotiations could  be useful for some developing countries and LDC s but may not be used by all 
developing countries . There nee ded to be a balance between discussions on the needs of individual 
countries and what might work for the majority of the proponents.  
74. She believed that p rogress had been made  in the discussions , especially under the leadership 
of the facilitator from Singapore, but that more need ed to be done.  Members needed  to work 
together instead of against  each other  and be part of the solution rather than  part of the problem . 
She indicated that she wished to quote an African proverb which said: "If you want to go fast, walk 
alone. If you want to go far, walk together". She appealed to Members'  wisdom to engage creatively, 
looking at the merits of each of the proposals, and working  together  to find solutions that were 
achievable and acceptable to all  Members . She believed that the meeting had been  useful and 
constructive . She would be reporting as usual on the status of work of the CTD  SS at the next 
Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) - Heads of Delegations me eting on 12 December. She also 
wished  to take th e opportunity to remind Members that, according to the instructions given by 
Ministers in the MC12 Outcome Document, the CTD  SS would need  to report on progress in its work 
to the GC before MC13. The matter of the report to the GC was something that she would  be in 
touch with Members about in the early part of 2024. Before closing, she indicated that she wished 
to share some of the messages that she ha d conveyed to Members previously, but which she 
believed  were im portant to repeat.  First, S&D was a key component of the development dimension 
of the WTO's  work. If it was truly to serve its purpose, S&D had to  contribute to the overall 
developm ent objectives of the MTS and the achievement of the SDGs. The importance of having 
strong and effective S&D provisions was undeniable. Furthermore, the issues contained in the 
ten G90 ASPs were not only important to the proponents and other developing cou ntries but were 
also of systemic importanc e. Finding the right balance was important for the system. Advancing in 
the negotiation s in the CTD  SS was in the interest s of the entire Membership and the WTO as a 
whole. She was hopeful that , based on the instructions in paragraph  2 of the MC12 Outcome 
Document , and taking on board the political guidance provided by Senior Officials, Members would  
be able to make significant progress on issues relating to S&D  – including on the G90 proposals  – 
with a view to achieving concrete outcomes at MC13.  She would be guided by Members in that 
regard.  
75. The Special Session took note of all interventions .  
C OTHER BUSINESS  
76. No matter was raised under "Other Business".  
77. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________