RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/CTD/M/6
10 October 2002
(02-5449)
Committee on Trade and Development
Sixth Special Session
NOTE ON THE MEETINGS OF 17 AND 24 JULY 2002
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Ransford Smith (Jamaica)
Subjects discussed:
A. ADOPTION OF TH E DRAFT AGENDA .................................................................................1
B. REPORT TO THE GENERAL C OUNCIL................................................................................1
C. OTHER BU SINESS ............................................................................................................... ..10
A. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA
1. The Chairman indicated that the draft agenda for the meeting was contained in airgram
WTO/AIR/1885/Rev.1 of 12 July 2002.  The agenda was accordingly adopted.
B. REPORT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL1
2. The Chairman said that since the Fifth Special Session on 2 July 2002, open-ended informal
consultations had been held on Agreement-specific issues, Institutional issues, Cross-cutting/Systemic
issues, and on the "Way Forward".  There had also been a number of open-ended consultations on thedraft Report to the General Council, contained in TN/CTD/W/12 and TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.1.
Comments and suggestions made by Members had been taken into account in preparing the draft
document TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.2 which was before Members for consideration.
3. The representative of the European Communities indicated that even if a deadline of
31 December 2002 as was contained in the draft report was accepted it would mean that Members
would have to consider a proposal a day, which would not be practical.  His delegation was of the
view that one way was to give the Special Session some intermediate deadlines to accommodate those
delegations which thought that a longer deadline was an excuse not to make progress quickly.  His
delegation believed that the Special Session should not set itself up for another disappointment and
should give itself sufficient time for an in-depth debate.  He was not sure how feasible the proposalsby a number of delegations were, with respect to clustering issues and separating those which needed
an in-depth debate from those which could be addressed more easily.  However, he believed that the
proposal in paragraph 14 of document TN/CTD/W/12 for a timeline for responses to the proposals
could be used, whereby in the responses by delegations they could indicate whether they thought the
                                                     
1 As requested by some Members this section includes interventions made by them, in informal
consultations, on the issue of the new reporting deadline during the period 10 - 24 July 2002.TN/CTD/M/6
Page 2
issue needed cross-cutting illumination or whether the issue was simply a technical one and they had
enough information with respect to utilization and other issues to be able to make a decision.
Alternatively, interim reports to the forthcoming General Council meetings could also ensure that
regular progress was made.  In any event the Special Session needed more than four or five months if
there was to be a comprehensive solution.
4. The representative of Egypt said his delegation was of the view that the work relating to the
mandate of the Special Session should be concluded by the end of November 2002.  Members should
before this new deadline, be allowed the opportunity to request open-ended meetings to which all
Members would be encouraged to participate effectiv ely to discuss the issue with a view to it being
resolved by the proposed date.
5. The representative of Kenya indicated that a number of suggestions had been made with
respect to the additional time-period and his delegation supported the proposal by the representative
of Egypt to conclude the work by November 2002.  That was due to the fact that when Ministers had
given Members the task they were confident that the work would be accomplished within the time-
period given.  The Special Session, however, had disappointed the Ministers by not completing the
work by July 2002, and his delegation was of the view that extending the deadline to December 2002
would further disappoint the Ministers.  He proposed that the Special Session seriously consider theproposal by the representative of Egypt, in order to finalise its work in that respect.  Some delegations
had stated that the subjects being addressed by the Special Session were technical and therefore they
wanted instructions from their capital.  However, his delegation was of the view that most of the
proposals that had been submitted were not technical and responses to them could be provided fairly
quickly.
6. The representative of the United States said that she did not agree that the Special Session had
not made any progress.  With respect to the deadline, her delegation could not accept November 2002.
As far as her delegation was concerned, if the Special Session was to find a manageable way to
address the Agreement-specific proposals, including through the holding of back-to-back meetings,
the proposed date was not realistic.  She said that even when the July 2002 date had been selected, anumber of delegations including developing countries, had recognised that that deadline was probably
too ambitious.  Her delegation therefore strongly urged for the new deadlines to be decided in a
realistic manner, so that Members could proceed in a business-like manner and address each of the
concerns raised in the work programme.
7. The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation felt that the Fifth Ministerial
Conference would be the appropriate deadline for the completion of the work of the Special Session.
Any deadline should be realistic and based on the amount of work to be accomplished and on thecomplexity of issues.  His delegation was ready to engage in such a discussion and invest the
necessary resources in order to give meaningful responses to the requests and proposals put forward
by developing countries.  The reason why the mandate could not be met and the work completed by
the end of July 2002, was because the issues at stake were complex, required the involvement of
technical expertise, and had far-reaching systemic and political implications.  The date of the nextMinisterial meeting was therefore more realistic than other proposed dates.  Any earlier deadline
would be ambitious and could turn out to be a "recipe for disaster".  A short deadline would sacrifice
quality for time, and that was not in any delegation's interest.  His delegation had a similar view to the
one expressed by the representative of the European Communities that it would be impractical to
respond to all the specific proposals that had been made in that time, since they were so many ofthem.  A deadline of the next Ministerial meeting would be more realistic as that would allow the
Special Session to devote more time to the issues and develop more concrete responses to the
proposals, including with respect to cross-cutting issues.  However, his delegation was ready to look
for possible compromises on that issue.TN/CTD/M/6
Page 3
8. The representative of Hungary indicated that his delegation also wanted a realistic timeframe,
and noted that the definition of what was realistic differed between Members.  His delegation could
have accepted the representative of Switzerland's proposal for the deadline to be the Fifth Ministerial.
They could also accept 31 March 2003, even though his delegation agreed with the delegation of
Switzerland that any date before 31 March 2003 could be a "recipe for disaster".  He indicated,however, that his delegation would not stand in the way of an earlier date.
9. The representative of Australia supported the proposed 31 March 2003 date as the deadline
for continued work as it was a more realistic timeframe.  Developing countries would not benefit from
a cursory review of special and differential (S&D) treatment provisions and that date would give
delegations sufficient time to address the issues raised in the review.  Proposals to change S&D
treatment provisions required an analysis of both the short and long term effects and therefore
required adequate time.  A deadline of 31 March 2003 would also allow for the possibility of realoutcomes from the study of Agreement-specific proposals rather than a preliminary or incomplete
discussion, which was what might be achieved if the Special Session agreed to the December 2002
timeframe.
10. The representative of Colombia stated that her delegation was of the view that 31 March 2003
was the most appropriate date.  It was realistic and would allow WTO subsidiary bodies and the
Special Session to analyse the proposals thoroughly.
11. The representative of New Zealand stated that her delegation had done an analysis of the
alternative dates that had been proposed and had tried to examine what that meant strategically, as
Members approached the reporting deadlines for other areas of the Doha Agenda.  Her delegation had
decided to look at the issue from a practical perspective in an effort to find a date that ensured arealistic amount of time for the work that lay ahead.  As a result of that analysis, it was felt that the
March 2003 deadline was the more realistic one.
12. The representative of Sri Lanka stated that some Members had said that there should be a
realistic timeframe within which to finalise the work of the Special Session.  Since the Special Session
would not be able to fulfil the mandate given by the Ministers at the Doha Ministerial Conference,there would be spill-over effects to other negotiations that Members were involved in.  Her delegation
was of the view that some of the deadlines that ha d been proposed were not realistic. However, her
delegation felt that the deadline of 31 December 2002 was both appropriate and realistic.
13. The representative of Korea indicated that hi s delegation was flexible with respect to the
deadline but believed that the new deadline should be set in the context of the amount of work to be
done.  Given the fact that there were more than 80 Agreement-specific proposals and there were the
cross-cutting issues, his delegation was of the view that a few more months were not enough to havean in-depth discussion on the issues.
14. The representative of Indonesia was concerned with the slow pace of the discussion on the
decision to strengthen S&D treatment provisions.  His delegation reluctantly acknowledged that it was
impossible to meet the 31 July 2002 deadline, and the Special Session therefore had no choice but to
extend the deadline.  However, the extension should not be for later than 31 December 2002.
15. The representative of Turkey indicated that the deadline to be fixed for the conclusion of the
work of the Special Session was important.  A deadline that was acceptable and realistic for all
Members needed to be found; his delegation was open to the options which had been suggested in the
text.
16. The representative of Cuba indicated that his delegation was disappointed with the lack of
progress on the subject of S&D treatment for developing countries, as it was not in consonance withTN/CTD/M/6
Page 4
the spirit of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  The Special Session needed to make progress on the
subject as it would have favorable a positive effect on the other aspects of the post-Doha negotiations.
17. The representative of Brazil said that with re spect to the deadline, the Special Session needed
to make an effort to fulfil the mandate as soon as possible, in line with the Doha Ministerial
Declaration, which called for priority attention for outstanding implementation issue andParagraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration was of relevance in that respect.  An extension of
the deadline beyond 2002 would not be in line with the spirit of the mandate.
18. The representative of Mexico said that his delegation had earlier proposed that the Special
Session should not have a specific deadline for reaching decisions, and that it should spend adequate
time reflecting on the specific issues, but following further consultations with his capital, his
delegation could support the deadline of 31 December 2002.
19. The representative of Uruguay stated that his delegation could support a deadline of
31 December 2002, as the date by which the Special Session would submit a report to the General
Council with clear recommendations for the adoption of a decision.
20. The representative of the European Communities stated that his delegation still had a problem
with the deadline.  His delegation still believed that the Special Session was setting itself an
impossible deadline of the end of December 2002.  His delegation was looking to possiblecompromises and had been trying hard to accommodate the views of other delegations, in particular
on paragraph 16 of TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.2 for which his delegation felt that there should be a clear link
to paragraph 15 of the same document.  The agreement of the whole text was a package, and it was
impractical to set a deadline of December 2002 given the ambitious approach and wish to make
progress.
21. The representative of Argentina indicated that the mid-point of the timeframe from Doha to
Cancun, was 15 October 2002.  That date marked the end of the post-Doha period and the beginning
of the pre-Cancun period.  That was why the 31 December 2002 deadline, from the perspective of the
Doha Ministerial Declaration was already an enormous concession as far as deadlines went.  He
understood the concerns of the delegation of the European Communities, but still wished that thework undertaken since the Doha Ministerial Conference be taken into account.  He said that there was
still a lot of work to be done.  The December 2002 deadline was also difficult for his delegation, but it
preferred that deadline for the reasons he had outlined.
22. The representative of India stated that when Members missed one deadline in the Doha
Ministerial Declaration, it was only logical that they went to the next available deadline; which in that
case was 31 December 2002.  Another factor to be taken into account was that many of the
implementation issues also related to S&D treatment, and since the deadline for those was31 December 2002, it was logical that that same deadline be adopted for the S&D treatment work.  As
the representative of Argentina had stated, the mid-point between the Doha Ministerial Conference
and the Cancun Ministerial Meeting was 15 October 2002, and the acceptance of the 31 December
2002 deadline was therefore a concession.  At the Doha Ministerial Conference, the Ministers had
decided on a sequence of work which involved certain activities being completed first, which wouldthen allow more focus to be given to other activities.  The whole sequence of events which Ministers
had calculated would lead to the final conclusion of the negotiations by 1 January 2005.  That
deadline could be disrupted if the first set of activities (which were to be completed by 31 July 2002)
spilled-over into 31 December 2002, and then further into early 2003.  His delegation would therefore
be uncomfortable with an extension of the deadline beyond 31 December 2002.  His delegation hopedthat by 31 December 2002, the Special Session would have effectively completed the work so that full
attention could be paid to other important issues, and progress made as fast as possible.  For instance,
modalities in agriculture were expected to be finalized early in 2003; and those in market access wereTN/CTD/M/6
Page 5
also to be addressed.  He therefore proposed that as part of the decision, the Special Session work out
a detailed programme as to how they would proceed monthly in order to achieve the goal of
31 December 2002.
23. The representative of Pakistan stated that as a result of the Doha Ministerial there was a
package that included sequencing of deadlines.  Some delegations were of the view that the Special
Session had made progress.  His delegation, however, was of the view that the Special Session had
not been able to do much work and was not able to meet the deadline set for its work.  His delegation
was willing to make efforts to meet any new deadline that was set.  However, his delegation could not
agree to the suggestion that the deadline for comp leting the work of the Special Session should be
extended beyond December 2002, as that could have serious repercussions for the whole Doha Work
Programme and the deadlines contained in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  With respect to the
proposed deadline of 31 October 2002 for delegations to respond to the proposals which had beentabled, he stated that it was important to note that the specific proposals by the proponents were tabled
relatively early during the process, with perhaps the last of the proposals having been submitted in
mid-April 2002.  The period of April to 31 October 2002 gave delegations seven months to react,
which should have been a sufficient amount of ti me, and was therefore not an ambitious proposal
since the issues were known to all Members.  Most of the issues were not before Members for the firsttime, since most of them had been raised in the pre-Seattle process.  Those issues had been raised
under the rubric of implementation, and the Doha Ministerial mandate included a deadline of
31 December 2002 for the resolution of implementation issues.  It would therefore be logical and
appropriate if the new deadline for S&D treatment issues be related to the implementation deadline.
With respect to the representative of Switzerland' s comment about quality versus time, he indicated
that the timing issue would only be considered if he was assured substantive quality responses for the
proposals raised.
24. The representative of Thailand indicated that he r delegation was flexible with respect to the
deadline, and stated that whatever deadline was agreed to, the specific work programme was very
important.  Her delegation supported the proposal by the representative of India that the SpecialSession should start considering a detailed weekly work programme, as necessary.
25. The representative of the Philippines was of the view that the 31 December 2002 deadline
gave the right challenge to enable Members to make decisions.  Members should be able to reach a
reasonable outcome by 31 December 2002.  There had always been deadlines which Members had
either adhered to or extended .  There could be problems if in the report to be submitted to the General
Council on 31 December 2002, S&D treatment which formed part of the basket of implementation
issues and concerns, was left out.  He implored flexibility from the delegations of the EuropeanCommunities, Switzerland and others who had raised concerns on the issue, and requested them to
join the compromise.
26. The representative of Kenya indicated that progress in the Special Session was really what
determined whether the Doha mandate translated into a "development agenda" or whether the
negotiations launched at the Doha Ministerial Conference were translated into a "development round".If the Doha mandate was to be completed on time, then the S&D treatment work needed to be
completed expeditiously.  The more the work wa s postponed, the more the Special Session would
encounter problems.  Accordingly, his delegation would consider the deadline of 31 December 2002
as the right compromise.  A number of proposals had been submitted and discussed and if the same
momentum and commitment exhibited in the course of preparing the report could be sustained whenthe Committee's work resumed in September 2002, then Members would be able to complete their
work by 31 December 2002.
27. The representative of Norway said that it came as no surprise that the only remaining issue
was the question of the deadline.  Deadlines served different purposes, allowing for substantive workTN/CTD/M/6
Page 6
and also for other more symbolic and bargaining  purposes.  Members owed it to themselves to
conclude the work by any new agreed deadline.  He added that his delegation preferred a March 2003
deadline as compared to a December 2002 deadline, but since the Chairman had asked for creative
thinking, adding the two dates that had been expressed by Members and dividing that time in half,
gave the date of 15 February 2003.  He therefore proposed that date as a compromise to Members.
28. The representative of Singapore stated that the scope and complexity of issues had prevented
the Special Session from fulfilling its mandate in time and making clear recommendations to the
General Council by July 2002.  As Members discussed the new deadlines, it was necessary to
structure the work, in order not to be in a similar position later on, and to ensure that some progress
was made.  As  some other delegations had stated, that might involve some amount of prioritisation in
the course of fulfilling it.  As the Special Session deliberated on the new deadline, it was important for
delegations to consider whether the deadline was a realistic one as there were more than 80 differentproposals, which required action in the Special Session.
29. The representative of the United States said th at her delegation had been flexible in following
the Chairman's guidance on the issue and had heard some of the concerns that had been raised, such
as those by the representative of India.  Her delegation had seen some logic in what the representative
of India had said and was prepared to look favourably at 31 December 2002 as the deadline date.However, her delegation also recognised the concerns that had been raised by the delegation of the
European Communities and others and hoped that Members could expeditiously find a solution that
could be satisfactory to everyone and help to produce the type of progress and results that Members
were seeking.  In that light, while her delegation could have accepted the December 2002 date, it felt
that some more consultations were required for Members to be able to agree on a new deadline thatwould preserve the different concerns that delegations had expressed.  She reiterated that while her
delegation understood the political practicality of the December 2002 deadline, it was still concerned
about the substantive practicality of it.  Her delegation would use all its resources to try and give
responses on all the proposals, most of which had been tabled in June 2002 and some in May 2002.  It
was important not to lose sight of some of those facts.  Notwithstanding her delegation's flexibilityabout the 31 December 2002 deadline, Members should recognise that this deadline was not a realistic
date for her delegation.
30. The representative of Uganda said that the only aspect that remained was that of the deadline,
for which some delegations had suggested one or two creative solutions.  The delegation of Norway's
creative solution for another date had convinced him that 31 December 2002 was the most reasonable
deadline.  When one considered the 15 February 2003 deadline, it would be after the Christmas break
and in Geneva there was not much activity in January, so the 15 days in February 2002 would notusually make much of a difference to the work of the Special Session.  Members needed to consider
what the perception of the public would be.  S&D treatment in terms of the development agenda was
an important signal and the more it was postponed, the more it would send out a wrong signal that
there was really no emphasis on the "development agenda".  The deadline of 31 December 2002 was
reasonable and Members needed to try and reach a decision by then.  He was not persuaded thatMembers needed more time.  A lot could be accomplished in that time and that was what was needed
to be addressed, rather than sending out a message to the world that there were too many linkages
with respect to progress on S&D treatment.  Th e delegation of the European Communities had been
helpful with regard to the Least-Developed Countries  (LDCs) and he was sure that it could find some
solutions to proffer even on S&D treatment issues before 31 December 2002.
31. The representative of Zambia indicated that what the representative of Uganda had said was
also reflective of the overall LDC position on the issue of the deadline.  The LDC Group also
supported a new reporting deadline of 31 December 2002.TN/CTD/M/6
Page 7
32. The representative of Canada recalled that her delegation had earlier been in favour of a new
reporting deadline of the Fifth Ministerial Meeting and had also expressed its willingness to consider
a deadline of 31 March 2003.  Her delegation had made some significant compromises in being
willing to agree to parts of the report, such as the agreement on a 31 October 2002 deadline for
providing detailed responses, which gave her delegation only two months after the Special Sessionresumed to provide those responses.  It was almost guaranteed that once those detailed responses were
given, each one would involve a lot of discussion.  There would only be a short time-period available
between that and the end of December 2002 to undertake that discussion.  Bearing in mind what had
been said by the representative of Uganda that there would be a break in December, she proposed that
Members should add fifteen days to the representative of Norway's proposal of 15 February 2003 and
consider the end of February 2003 as a possible date.  A number of proposals had been tabled in April
2002.  Afterwards there were two sets of proposals in May, one on 14 May and one on 24 May 2002.However, the substantive bulk of proposals were received on 24 June 2002 from the African Group
(TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.1), which included 64 proposals.  Up until that point her government had been
able to deal with the tabled proposals and work actively, but after the latter set of proposals her capital
was quite overwhelmed.  Members needed to be realistic about how they were going to deal with such
a large agenda.
33. The representative of Saint Lucia said that her delegation was not going to reiterate its
position which was in line with that expressed by  other developing countries.  Deadlines were not
definite - Ministers had given the 31 July 2002 deadline and Members were debating extending it.
31 December 2002 was an additional five months, and five months from 31 March 2003 was the
Ministerial Conference.  Targets were there to give a sense of urgency and as had been said be therepresentative of Uganda, Members needed to try and meet those targets.  Members operated on the
basis of consensus and so it was clear that nothing would happen by 31 December 2002 unless all
Members agreed to it.  All of the deadlines that had been agreed to in the post-Doha work programme
had been difficult for her delegation, but it had gone along with the consensus.  She said that those
delegations that were having difficulties with the 31 December 2002 deadline might see it as anindication of the prioritisation of the work to be undertaken and therefore could perhaps show some
flexibility in that regard.
34. The representative of Japan said that his delegation was pleased to note that even though the
positions of delegations on the deadline were different, one thing that Members had expressed in
common was that there should not be any compromise in the quality and effort put into the work.  The
difference in Members' positions on the deadline seemed to based on the question of whether or not it
was practical.  He said that even if five full days of meetings of the Special Session were devoted toAgreement-specific proposals, it would still give only twenty minutes for each proposal to be
considered.  He was not sure whether that amount of time was adequate enough to resolve each
proposal, given the nature of the proposals that had been tabled.  He requested Members to reflect on
that while considering the new deadline.
35. The representative of Malaysia thanked Members for the flexibility that they had shown and
suggested that the Chairman could make a statement that would take into consideration the different
views of delegations.  His delegation understood the concerns expressed by several delegations on the
issue of the deadline and it appreciated the delegation of Canada's retraction of some of their earlier
suggestions relating to language.  His delegation also extended its appreciation to those delegations
who were initially not happy with a 31 December  2002 deadline but had shown flexibility and said
they would not stand in the path of consensus.  Surprisingly some delegations which his delegation
had thought would not have a problem with that d eadline had now expressed their inability to agree to
a 31 December 2002 date.  The 31 July 2002 deadline had been agreed at the Doha Ministerial
Conference because those very delegations had seen it as part of a bigger picture; there were
Singapore issues that needed to be agreed upon and a July 2002 deadline for the S&D treatment workwas something that those delegations were willing to accept at that time.  Now, since there was anTN/CTD/M/6
Page 8
agreed language on the Singapore issues and things were moving, some delegations were having a
problem with the proposed new deadline of December 2002.  Like some delegations had said, it was
important for political purposes to agree on as early a deadline as possible.  When the first milestone
was missed then the measures should be rectified and Members should try to get the process back on
track.  The 31 December 2002 deadline was also linked to the date of implementation-related issuesand that was why his delegation felt that it was a date that Members should strive for.
36. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was involved in a
serious exercise, which included the issue of the new deadline.  He had carefully noted the
interventions that had been made.  With reference to what had been said by the representative of
Uganda regarding a wrong impression being created about the Development Agenda, that was
precisely what his delegation did not want to ha ppen and that was why it was pressing for a more
realistic timeframe for the new reporting deadline.  He requested the Chairman for a small break inthe meeting so that his delegation could explore with other Members where the possible common
ground lay.
37. Reconvening the meeting after a short break the Chairman said that he hoped that the
interlude had helped in facilitating consensus on the question of the deadline that was contained in
paragraph 14 of TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.2 and that Members had found a solution that was acceptable toall.
38. The representative of the European Communities said that though his delegation's views had
not changed, its flexibility had increased a little.  He had tried to consult the largest possible number
of delegations in the break and apologised for not having been able to discuss the issue with all
delegations.  He indicated that his delegation had two points to make.  Firstly, with respect toparagraph 14 of TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.2 which read "It is therefore recommended that the General
Council instruct the Special Session of the CTD to proceed expeditiously to fulfil its mandate, as
contained in Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and Paragraph 12 of the Decision on
Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, and complete its work so as to be able to report back to
the General Council", he suggested that the words "and complete its work" be deleted.  That wouldnot change the deadline but would clarify that not all of the mandate contained in Paragraph 44 of the
Doha Ministerial Declaration and that contained in  Paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-
Related Issues and Concerns, which in fact had three pillars, was supposed to be completed by the end
of December 2002.  He thought that the substance of what delegations were seeking was to extend the
deadlines of Paragraph 12(i) and 12(ii) of the Implementation-Decision, and by deleting those words
that would be made more clear and precise.  The other point he wished to make was that the problems
and difficulty that his delegation had expressed about completing the work by December 2002, couldbe clearly reflected in the Chairman's comments when the decision was adopted.  He said that with
those two provisos his delegation would be able to go along with the consensus of 31 December 2002
as the new reporting deadline, in order to be able to continue their work.
39. The representative of the Malaysia while thanking the representative of the European
Communities for the flexibility it had shown, enquired why the delegation of the European
Communities wanted the words "and complete its work" deleted from paragraph 14 of
TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.2.
40. The representative of Saint Lucia stated that from the beginning of the work of the Special
Session, the Committee had only been pursuing the work arising from the mandate in the initial
paragraphs of Paragraph 12 of the Decision on Im plementation-Related Issues and Concerns, and the
Members had always held that there was more work to be done.  Therefore, with respect to the
completion of the work of the Special Session, her delegation agreed that that the Doha Ministerial
mandate was broader than the review of all of the proposals and issues raised.  She pointed to
Paragraph 12.1 (iii) of the Implementation-Decision in particular, which was quoted in paragraph 1 ofTN/CTD/M/6
Page 9
TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.2, and stated that this was broader and referred to the architecture of WTO rules.
In addition, Paragraph 12 of the Implementation-D ecision stated that the General Council would be
reported to with clear recommendations, and what she understood from the proposal by the
representative of the European Communities was that the Special Session would therefore be
repeating what was in Paragraph 12 of the Implementation-Decision.
41. The Chairman indicated that from the beginning of the work of the Special Session he had
indicated that Members needed to address those aspects of its work such as Paragraph 12.1 (iii) of the
Implementation-Decision which referred to the archit ecture, subsequent to the consideration of those
time-bound aspects of its work for July 2002 (Paragraphs 12 (i) and (ii) of the Decision on
Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns).  He was of the view that this was what was captured in
the proposal made by the delegation of the European Communities, and that it was a fair reflection of
what was contained in the mandate and timeframes set at the Doha Ministerial Conference, and theextension being sought.
42. The representative of Malaysia indicated that he would yield to the explanation and advice of
the other delegations.  He had also heard the explanation of the Chairman that the idea was to fulfil
the mandate of Paragraph 44 of the Doha Minister ial Declaration and Paragraph 12.1 of the Decision
on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns.  He asked the Chairman whether the meaning of theproposal by the representative of the European Communities was that there could be further issues,
which were not time-bound, and could be taken up later, while those issues which were time-bound
should be resolved by 31 December 2002.  If that was so, then his delegation could go along with the
emerging consensus.
43. The Chairman indicated that the representative of Malaysia's understanding was correct.  The
Special Session was bound to report back to the General Council on the issues which were time-
bound by 31 July 2002, a deadline that was now intended to be extended to 31 December 2002 if
Members agreed to it.
44. The representative of Egypt thanked the delegation of the European Communities for
showing such flexibility with respect to the new deadline.  His delegation could go along with the
consensus on a new reporting deadline of 31 December 2002, even though they still strongly
supported their initial position, which was to conclude the work by November 2002. He added that
that flexibility was a concession that his delegation was prepared to make.
45. The Chairman thanked Members for showing th e compromise and goodwill that was critical
to reach an agreement on the Report.  He said that it had not been an easy exercise nor task and
Members needed to bear in mind that much difficult work remained to be done, as their work was far
from complete.  Nevertheless, it was important that Members had been able to agree on therecommendations that were reflected in the "Way Forw ard".  That suggested that with hard work and
goodwill the Special Session should be able to move forward after the summer break to meet the
deadline set.  He clarified that at that meeting, Members were only making recommendations and not
taking decisions.  The General Council would need to consider and take action on the Special
Session's Report on 31 July 2002.  There were two issues that had been specially difficult whenpreparing and agreeing to the Report.  One was the relationship between the work to be carried out
under paragraph 15 of TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.2 on Agreement-specific proposals and under
paragraph 16 of the report on cross-cutting issues.  He was of the view, that the manner in which those
paragraphs appeared preserved the various positions expressed by Members on that relationship.  It
also preserved the opportunity for Members who so wished to make cross linkages between the two
areas of work and to make inputs from one to the other as they considered appropriate.  The second
issue was the issue raised by the delegation of the European Communities in the informal, and to
which he had indicated he would refer to.  In relation to the deadline in paragraph 14 of
TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.2, he recognised that some delegations strongly felt that the new deadline at theTN/CTD/M/6
Page 10
end of the year was impossible to meet.  He realised that it was only in the spirit of achieving the
necessary consensus, in order to continue the Special Session's work, that those Members had gone
along with the December 2002 deadline.  Those Members had also expressed the view that they
believed that the results achievable by the end of 2002, had to be assessed in light of those views on
the deadline.  He continued by saying that other delegations had expressed their disappointment thatthe July 2002 deadline was not adhered to, given the importance they attached to it in the overall
process agreed at the Doha Ministerial Conference.  However, he understood that the same
delegations were willing to agree to a new deadline of 31 December 2002 as they saw it as an
appropriate and reasonable extension.  He concluded by saying that while Members had agreed on the
Way Forward it was necessary for them to agree on a detailed work plan, in which Members needed
to structure their work in a manner that was faithful to their mandate and to the elements that had been
agreed to in the Way Forward.  A detailed work plan would allow Members to organise their work inan optimal way bearing in mind the deadline of 31 December 2002.  He felt that Members should turn
their attention to that as a matter of priority immediately after the summer break. He asked whether
the draft report TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.2 along with the indicated amendments and modifications was
now acceptable to Members and indicated that the amended Report, once adopted, would be
circulated to members as document TN/CTD/3 as soon as possible.
46. The draft report TN/CTD/W/12/Rev.2 with its proposed amendments was accepted.
C.  OTHER BUSINESS
47. The Chairman stated that he did not have any issues to raise under that agenda item.  As no
other delegation had any issues to raise, he took the opportunity to once again thank all the
delegations for their hard work and flexibility so that a decision could be reached for the report of theSpecial Session of the CTD to the General Council.  The meeting was closed.
__________