RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/C/M/8
6 June 2003
(03-2927)
Trade Negotiations Committee
4 April 2003
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 4 April 2003
Chairman: Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi (Director-General)
Subjects discussed:
1. Reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC
2. Future work
1. Reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC
1. The Chairman introduced the reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC
which had met the last TNC meeting.  These reports had been circulated in the following official
documents:
Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture:  TN/AG/8
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body: TN/DS/7
Negotiating Group on Rules: TN/RL/5Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services:  TN/S/7
2. As participants were aware, a number of senior capital-based officials had been in Geneva
during the present week, and he was grateful for their presence.  From the informal session of the
TNC two days previously, as well as from his other contacts with these officials, he had the sense thatall delegations recognized the challenges ahead of them.
3. No-one could deny that missed deadlines had created much disappointment.  He took this
very seriously, and he shared the disappointment.  Bu t, in the previous two days, he had been pleased
to hear many delegations reaffirming their commitment to concluding the Round successfully and on
time, and their determination to keep on working hard to make progress in preparation for Cancún.The challenge now was to move forward across the whole range of negotiating issues, bearing always
in mind the actions Ministers were committed to in Cancún.  Participants had to resolve as many of
the outstanding issues as possible before then, and set out with clarity the choices for Ministers on the
ones that remain.
4. He believed all delegations now had a good sense of the issues that were important to their
partners.  The issues that delegations had raised again and again as their key focus points for the work
in the weeks ahead included the market access cluster, notably agriculture, the development
dimension, both in terms of the broad negotiating context and specific issues, and other issues on
which Ministers had an obligation to focus at Cancún, such as the Singapore issues.TN/C/M/8
Page 2
5. In all of these areas, together with the rules negotiations and the DSU review, it had been
mentioned often during the week that while good work had been done, there was a need to work with
greater intensity and a sharper sense of what needed to be done for Cancún and for the remainder of
the Round.  Along with this intensive work in key areas, participants also needed to begin building
positive linkages among issues, bearing in mind the Single Undertaking.  He had seen someindications during the week that these connections were beginning to be made, but there was a long
way to go yet.  And it was equally important to avoid the temptation to create the negative linkages
that could block progress.
6. Mr. Harbinson, Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, said that at
the last TNC meeting in March he had reported on the work carried out at the Agriculture Special
Session held from 24 to 28 February.  The written report of that meeting had subsequently become
available as document TN/AG/8.  He wished to briefly summarize the events at the latest formalmeeting of the Special Session which had taken place on 31 March.  Under the first agenda item, he
had reported orally on the work undertaken during informal open-ended meetings held on 25 and 28
March, and also on his intensive consultations and contacts with different groups of participants on
various issues during the course of that week.
7. The gist of his report was that, despite major efforts by all concerned, particularly over the
past three months, broadly acceptable compromises in key areas had, for the time being, remained
elusive.  His repeated calls over the past months for delegations to engage in serious negotiations
aimed at finding solutions that could attract broad-based support had not led to a movement away
from long-standing positions towards convergence.  As a result, Members did not appear to be in a
position to establish modalities by the date set by Ministers, nor could he produce a second draft ofmodalities.  The failure to establish modalities was a setback, and it was very disappointing that the
hard work over the past few weeks and months had not yet come to fruition.  However, taking a
broader perspective, he had noted that there were, in his view, some positive aspects.  Members had
made considerable progress in some areas and there was much greater clarity about matters and the
linkages between different issues.  Members were now also working at the necessary level of detail inthe negotiations.
8. Under the second agenda item at that meeting, close to 50 Members had made interventions,
including some delegations that had spoken on behalf of various groups of Members.  While
expressing their concern and disappointment regarding the state of affairs, all Members taking the
floor under the agenda item had stated that they were prepared, indeed committed, to continue
working towards the establishment of modalities as soon as possible.
9. Under the third agenda item, he had concluded that Members would have to work even
harder, both in Geneva and between capitals.  For his part, on the basis of statements that had been
made, he would continue to organise technical and other consultations to facilitate progress on all
fronts – and he emphasised all fronts – taking into account the need for a balanced programme of
work.  In carrying out this work, he had stressed that Members should bear in mind that consultations
on specific issues had to be seen in their proper context as part of the package as whole.  He wouldhope, in the near future, to receive clear signals of possible movements on the key issues.  He had also
pointed out that further Special Sessions would be held on 26-27 June, 1 July and 16-18 July.  He had
suggested that delegations, as well as himself, s hould report to these Special Sessions on the ongoing
consultations and on any progress made.
10. At this point, one delegation had indicated that it needed to reflect carefully on the proposed
method of work before it would be in a position to decide whether it could agree to working along the
lines suggested.  He nevertheless felt that, in view of the clearly expressed desire of so many
participants to continue work in the Special Sess ion, the course of action just outlined should be
adhered to, with a view to establishing modalities as soon as possible.  The written report to the TNC
on the 31 March Special Session would be circulated in due course as document TN/AG/9.TN/C/M/8
Page 3
11. Ambassador Balás (Hungary), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement
Body, said that, as could be seen from his written report, the DSU negotiations had entered a crucial
stage, and to assist Members in the final months  of work, a framework document would be circulated
to further the process.  There were still widely different levels of ambition among delegations with
respect to the clarification and improvement of the DSU, and different positions with regard to the
group's future work and the end result.  The challe nge in the coming weeks was to work together to
arrive at a successful outcome.
12. Ambassador Groser (New Zealand), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules, said that
the failure to meet the crucial deadline on agriculture was leading some to re-evaluation of the
structure of the negotiations, but it made no material difference to the negotiating process in the Rules
Group.  If the Doha deadlines had been respected, the Rules Group might have been placed under
pressure to accelerate the process into the subsequent phase, but this had not happened.
13. The Rules Group's mandate had two distinct aspects: the RTA mandate and the trade
remedies and subsidies mandate.  On both sides, he was confident that the Group would neither
overload nor underload Cancún.  On the RTA side, he believed that the progress being made on
transparency might allow the Group to present a provisional decision.  This might be optimistic, and
he would be able to adjust this level of ambition if necessary, but it was his aim for the time being.Trade remedies and subsidies were the core of tr ade policy; the work was technical, important and
potentially very sensitive, and its outcomes were central to balance, at least at the end of the
negotiations in terms of the Single Undertaking.
14. The second aspect of the mandate was flexible in that the Group did not have to abide by
internally derived deadlines and the work in th e initial phase was therefore proceeding according to
the Doha Ministerial instructions.  On subsidies, progress was slow and he urged delegations to be
more specific in their proposals, but he also appreciated the technical and political problems involved
in coming forward with proposals for specific change s sought in the negotiation.  With respect to the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the demandeurs were showing a sophisticated approach to this negotiation
and a great deal of specific material was on the table, so critical mass was approaching.  He had everyreason to be confident that the Group could move seamlessly into the subsequent phase after Cancún.
At this stage, he believed it was inappropriate to try to draw sharp a line between the two phases.  In
any case, the mood would shift after Cancún.  But this was just procedure, not about substance, since
work on substance had not begun.  He said there was no reason to change his thinking that the Rules
Group was going to conclude its negotiations by the 1 January 2005 deadline, and he would continue
to facilitate the negotiations based on that assessment.
15. Ambassador Jara (Chile), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in
Services, said his report in document TN/S/7 showed that the Special Session had agreed on
modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberal isation and he praised the flexibility of the
Members and the Secretariat's hard work in this resp ect.  Pending work remained on modalities for the
special treatment for LDCs, on which the LDCs had promised to present a revised draft soon, and he
encouraged them to do so as soon as possible so that the work on this could speed up and make thenegotiations more meaningful for this group of countries.  So far, 14 initial offers had been submitted
of which 5 were from developing countries.  Ma ny more were currently under preparation and would
be submitted soon.  The date of 31 March for initial offers was not a deadline, but rather marked a
new phase in the negotiation.  This was an incremental process in which Members would continue to
come forward with their contributions.  The offers were initial and would improve over time, andsince the process of preparing services offers was complex at a technical as well as political level, due
time should be given for this.  He was confident that by the next Special Session there would be
enough offers to ensure the start of a new intensive phase of bilateral negotiations.  He also hoped that
linkages would continue to be seen in a positive ma nner.  More progress on the services front would
be a good way to induce progress elsewhere in the negotiations, and vice versa.TN/C/M/8
Page 4
16. Ambassador Chung (Korea), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS, said
that since February there had been no formal meeting, but he had held a series of informal
consultations with delegations in various formats and he had circulated an informal paper, Job(03)/60
on 20 March.  This paper contained possible elements and options for the multilateral system
Members were negotiating, and had been prepared on his own responsibility to stimulate morefocused and constructive negotiations.  Since the paper's circulation, he had held two open-ended
informal meetings on 24 March and 1 April and planned to continue intensive informal consultations
during the first part of April.  The aim of these informal consultations was to provide as much
guidance as possible in the formulation of a common negotiating text, and he hoped that this draft text
could be prepared in good time prior to the next formal meeting of the Special Session, scheduled to
be held on 29-30 April.  He strongly preferred that a draft text emerge from delegations, and should
that not be the case, he would come forward with  a text on his own responsibility.  He hoped that
delegations – given that there would only be tw o more formal meetings before Cancún – would
refrain from restating known positions and seek common ground.
17. Ambassador Smith (Jamaica), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Development, said the report of the Special Session of the CTD, contained in document
TN/CTD/7, had recommended that the General Council take note of the agreement in principle that
had been reached on twelve Agreement-specific proposals, and revert to the question of the adoption
of these proposals at a later date.  The Special Session had also recommended that the General
Council "provide clarification, as it considers appropriate, regarding paragraph 44 of the Doha
Ministerial Declaration and paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-related Issues and
Concerns, and the legal and practical means to give effect to the mandate".
18. He recalled that the report of the Special Session had been considered by the General Council
during its meeting of 10 and 11 February 2003 and, in light of the absence of consensus on adopting
its recommendations, it had been agreed that the General Council would revert to this issue and that
the Chairman of the General Council, in coordination with him as Chairman of the Special Session,
would undertake consultations on how to take the matter forward.  He wished to inform Membersthat, following this request, the Chairman of the General Council had begun the process of informal
consultations.
19. The representatives of Norway, Venezuela
, Morocco , the Philippines  and Hungary  suggested
that statements made at the informal session of the TNC be reflected in the minutes of the present
meeting at the request of the delegation concerned.
20. Following a procedural discussion, the Chairman said he did not believe incorporating
informal statements into the formal minutes was good practice, but he would do so on this occasion if
Members so wished1.
21. The representative of Norway said that, follow ing discussions over the previous two days, it
seemed that there was a unanimous assessment that the situation in the negotiations was serious, but
not dramatic.  As Japan had said, no one was reaching for the alarm button, and there was a clear
effort to de-dramatise the situation and the way forward was continuing hard work in all areas.  It wasimportant to reconfirm the mandate's content and development focus.  There were different views on
how the Doha mandate should be interpreted in terms of levels of ambition – more so on agriculture,
and less so on other issues.  This seemed to be the most serious obstacle to overcome in order to
achieve progress.  Norway believed the only way to make progress was to apply an incremental
approach.  Members had to start building consensus by gradually developing agreement on thevarious elements.  This was a well known WTO approach that had worked for Doha, and Norway
trusted it would work for Cancún.  In order to succeed in Cancún, parallel progress was needed in the
core areas: agriculture, non-agricultural market access, services and antidumping.  She wished to
                                                     
1  See Annex.TN/C/M/8
Page 5
inform Members that Norway had pledged anothe r 6 million Norwegian kroner, or about CHF 1.1
million, to the DDA Gl obal Trust Fund.
22. The representative of Djibouti said his delegation believed the situation was not as bad as
some had said.  Members should be positive and continue the negotiations in the hope that solutions
would be found before Cancún.  Members should turn their attention to what was possible torealistically negotiate, and delegations had to be urged to state clearly where there were possibilities
for making progress and in which areas it would be difficult for them to agree.
23. In view of the situation, the Chairman would have to work closely with all delegations in the
coming weeks.  In doing so, Djibouti believed that the Chairman should give priority to agriculture.
This was a thorny issue and without results in this area, Members knew what results they would
achieve in other areas.  His delegation advised the Chairman to take up his pilgrim stick, just as one
would on a pilgrimage to Mecca, for the path would be long and difficult.  His delegation was alsoencouraged by the remarks by the Agriculture Spec ial Session Chairman that he was determined to
continue to work with Members to find solutions, and it wished both Chairmen courage in their work
on this difficult issue.
24. The representative of Morocco, speaking on behalf of the African Group
, said the African
Group had taken note of the engagement expressed by all Members to do everything possible to make
progress in the negotiations so as to arrive at Cancún with positive answers.  The Group hoped that
political expressions would materialize into commitments and decisions over the next few weeks, and
that everything that had been said at the informal session would be translated into concrete actions.  If
not, the present mistrust and lack of confidence among Members would become even greater.  The
Group remained optimistic and fully engaged.
25. The representative of the Philippines said that, considering the present situation, Members
would need to lower their expectations for the negotiations.  For developing countries lacking
resources, such as the Philippines, a measured approach was needed to the negotiations, not a big
bang-type approach, which would lead to outcomes Members found difficult to implement.  His
delegation's primary concern was the negotiations on market access, and rules in the context of thosenegotiations.  The modalities would have to be elaborated correctly so that the outcomes would
contribute to viable development and fairer rules, un like the past.  This meant that there had to be a
focus on S&D treatment and implementation-related issues to ensure that they would be integrated
into the modalities and outcome of these negotiations to the advantage of developing countries.  There
had been attempts to divide the developing countries by certain suggestions on rules and preferences,
but these were just illusions.  Members should look only at the fundamental issues behind these rules,
so as to make them stronger and fairer in the multilateral context, and developing countries shouldwork together to achieve this aim.
26. The representative of Romania said that his delegation, although disappointed at the missed
deadlines, was determined to continue its efforts to enhance the negotiations.  A lot of work needed to
be done in Geneva and the Chairman's involvement in, and the TNC's supervision of, this process was
valuable.  At the same time, consultations at the bilateral and plurilateral levels were needed at thisstage.  All delegations were committed to the Doha mandate and no-one questioned it, accordingly
Members needed to reflect on flexibility and how to move their positions closer together to allow the
process to turn into real negotiations.  His delegation was convinced that, since Ministers would have
a core of issues to decide upon in Cancún, as many matters as possible should be resolved before
September.  The more problems that remained unsolved by Cancún, the less chance it had ofsucceeding.  The entire multilateral systems needed a positive sign of trust, predictability, stability and
development.  Romania was committed to the multilateral trading system, was determined to actively
participate in the present negotiations, and wished to benefit from a transparent and inclusive process
of consultations and negotiations.  In this respect,  Romania welcomed any future initiative to invite
capital-based officials to attend informal and formal meetings of the TNC.TN/C/M/8
Page 6
27. The representative of Pakistan said that at least two of the Chairpersons' reports had been
optimistic.  The Rules Group Chairman had said his Group was on course for 1 January 2005, and the
Services Special Session Chairman had also been optimistic.  Pakistan was also pleased that the
Agriculture Special Session Chairman was not discouraged and was reinvigorating his efforts.
28. The representative of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the Least-Developed Countries , said
the LDCs shared the Chairman's view that in the environment of global economic uncertainty,
progress in the Doha Round was essential to re building confidence.  The Doha Round had been
generally referred to as a development round, and although the LDCs had not coined the phrase, they
had welcomed it.  The LDCs hoped that this Round would help bring about changes that would enable
them to participate meaningfully in multilateral tr ade.  They had had the sad experience from the past
four decades, where their market share had fallen fr om 3% of world trade to 0.4% at the beginning of
the new millennium, and they feared that this share would continue to fall if measures were not takento address their needs.
29. LDCs had committed themselves to free market principles to gain from trade, even though the
multilateral rules were uneven.  As LDCs had tried to increase exports, they had encountered
protectionist tendencies in precisely those areas where they might have an edge.  The continued
existence of tariff peaks and tariff escalation, combined with non-tariff barriers, was thwarting theirtrade and development prospects.  Where their products had nominal market access, they were not
getting "market entry".  The secular decline in tr ade of primary commodities had been a serious drag
on their economies, which the multilateral trading system had not responded to counter.  If the Doha
Round failed to address issues that were critical to LDCs, their marginalization would be accentuated
even more.
30. He wished to outline some of the more significant aspects of the development dimension that
the LDCs were looking for in the Doha Round, and their key components in practical terms.  Almost
all LDCs were predominantly agricultural, yet they accounted for a tiny fraction of agricultural trade.
The current negotiations affected these countries in varying ways and they shared the concerns of
certain countries that erosion of tariff preferences would harm their interests.  The LDCs recognizedthat tariff walls would come down one day and alternatives had to be considered.  Perhaps other
countries could work together with the LDCs in developing beneficial compensatory mechanisms that
would benefit LDCs, and also help develop their export potential.
31. Working with the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs), LDCs had practically eliminated all
production or export subsidies.  Those who did not need advice from the BWIs, or were fortunate to
have money to spare, could continue to help their farmers or exporters.  This was intrinsically
inequitable when LDCs tried to compete in the world markets.  At the same time, the LDCsrecognized that in food aid, the current state of negotiations was still inadequate to meet their needs.
The current negotiations in agriculture did not incorporate the development dimension that the LDCs
had been looking for, and they requested from the Se cretariat to look into the impact of the current
proposals on these countries to advise them of the implications.  Properly informed, the LDCs could
participate much more meaningfu lly in the current negotiations.
32. The Chairman's statement in the formal session had highlighted the current negotiations in the
Services Special Session as providing hope, yet the nature of the negotiations in the request/offer
approach was intrinsically non-transparent.  Coun tries like the LDCs, with imperfect information,
were left completely helpless and were unable to evaluate requests to make meaningful offers, nor
were they able make realistic requests of others.  The LDCs had hoped that the modalities wouldestablish realistic guidelines for them.  The movement of natural persons was of critical importance to
the LDCs.  The potential of services, particularly in movement of unskilled labour, was immense.  All
estimates indicated that the gains to developed and developing countries, through free movement of
unskilled labour, could be considerably more than through total liberalization of all trade in goods.
The LDCs required significant forward movement in this area if the negotiations were to havemeaning and balance.TN/C/M/8
Page 7
33. Many delegations had referred to S&D and implementation issues as being the most
important component of the development dimension, and while they were important, they constituted
only one segment of the development dimension.  The LDCs regarded the S&D and implementation
issues as integral to the Uruguay Round, and their operationalization as part of the balance of that
Round.  The Doha Declaration had been very clear in this respect.  The new approaches the LDCswere now confronted with, if adopted, would diametrically alter the context of the negotiations.
While the LDCs would fully participate and support the efforts of the Chairman of the General
Council to untie the knots, the LDCs wished to caution that successful resolution of S&D and
implementation issues was viewed as a confidence building measure.
34. On non-agricultural market access, the LDCs had tabled a proposal and had also provided
examples of non-tariff barriers which had been reflected in the Negotiating Group Chairman's latest
compilation.  The LDCs approach was one of highlighting their problems, in the expectation that theirconcerns would be met as a matter of priority.  Some countries and groups had provided the LDCs
with duty and quota-free market access, and while grateful for these initiatives, the LDCs urged others
to provide similar access.  Given the LDCs' marginal share in world trade, providing such access
would hardly be a blip on the radar screen of worl d trade, yet the potential benefits to the intended
beneficiaries could be considerable.  At the same time, addressing non-tariff barriers to the entry ofLDC products would be indispensable.
35. The development dimension covered the area of rules as well, and many countries support
exempting LDCs from anti-dumping procedures fo r a certain period.  Yet, one LDC Member had
already faced three anti-dumping investigations.  In two cases, the penalties imposed were still in
place, while the proceedings in the third case had not been completed.  Access to the disputesettlement process was not availed of;  it was doubtful if these cases would have had much economic
meaning apart from a moral victory.  When such anti-dumping proceedings were adopted, and
sometimes unfairly, LDCs wondered if the multilate ral system could truly cater to the development
dimension.
36. An understanding on TRIPS and Public Health was very important to the LDCs, and they had
been given hope of forward movement in the near  future.  Such an understanding would be an
important confidence-building measure.  Simultaneously, it would provide hope that many LDC
health needs, which were posing as severe constraints to their developmental programmes, could be
addressed.
37. Trade-Related Technical Assistance ran through the totality of the Doha Declaration, and
although the Membership did not normally think of  including it in the negotiating mandate, the LDCs
wished to emphasize that they would give even greater attention to it.  They wanted to increasefunding of the WTO's TRTA and Capacity Building programmes, along with improvement in their
quality.  The WTO was uniquely positioned to provide badly needed technical advice for the
negotiating processes.  The LDCs wanted greater attention given to this area, as had been clearly
indicated by Ministers at Doha.
38. Finally, he wished to comment on the new issues that many wanted to bring into the fold of
the negotiations.  An overloaded agenda already existed, and almost all delegations, large or small,
had expressed their preoccupations on the current agenda.  The LDCs believed it would not be
desirable to bring new items into the negotiating agenda until significant progress could be achieved
on those currently being grappled with.  Members should use the time before the Ministerial
Conference at Cancún wisely.  The LDCs, for their part, were committed to the goals the Ministers setat Doha and would work with the Membership to help achieve them.
39. The representative of Chile said his delegation continued to be optimistic despite the serious
difficulties that had prevented the deadline for the establishment of modalities in agriculture from
being respected.  The efforts deployed had come up against an impossible reality – some developed
countries had not been able to meet the high expectations set out in the Doha mandate.  Not allTN/C/M/8
Page 8
Members had shown the same degree of responsibility in the agricultural negotiations.  Chile had a
constructive attitude and was fully committed to the spirit and letter of the Doha mandate, but it had
not seen the same attitude nor commitments from Members that had tried to dilute this mandate and
maintain the status quo.  To justify their stance, some of the richer countries had hidden behind poorer
countries and pseudo-non-trade concerns to introduce issues which sought to create new barriers andto distort trade.  They had forgotten what had been agreed by Ministers, that the present work was to
aim at promoting trade as a motor for development for the most needy countries, and that agriculture
played a decisive development role for the majority of developing countries.  They had also forgotten
that removal of trade and production-distorting subsidies and the substantive improvement of market
access would make it possible to correct the present inequities in international agricultural trade,
particularly for developing countries and LDCs.  They had forgotten all of this.
40. On market access for non-agricultural goods, th ere had been a good technical discussion with
a high level of participation, but this negotation might be affected by the lack of modalities in
agriculture.  Many Members believed that it would not be possible to reach an agreement on the level
of ambition in the non-agricultural area, since it was not known what would be the level of ambition
in agriculture.  It was thus possible that Member s would not be able to meet the deadline set for
agreement on modalities in this area, which would then have to be dealt with in Cancún.
41. In the area of intellectual property, Chile continued to believe that it was essential to find a
permanent multilateral solution to the problem of access to medicines for countries that did not have
sufficient manufacturing capacity.  This was not part of the negotiations, but it certainly was an issue
which would contaminate public debate and the negotiations if there was failure to agree, so Members
had to act on it.  As to the creation of a multilateral notification and registration system ofgeographical indications for wines and spirits, his delegation was committed to complying with the
mandate and to meet the obligation of the Uruguay Round to establish such a register.  This obligation
stipulated that the purpose of the system was to facilitate the level of protection for wines and spirits,
and not increase that protection or impose new obligations on all Members.  Chile might be small and
poor, but was not naïve.  It could not accept that in the desire to establish such a register, newobligations would be imposed upon it in addition to those already borne.  This was not a serious or
responsible way of carrying out negotiations in this area.  For this reason, Chile supported the creation
of a system in which participation would be voluntary without legal effects on those Members not
wishing to participate.  Chile was not in a position to take on any additional obligations which would
result in implementation costs.  It appealed to all Members to lower ambitions in this area, because it
was an attempt to add obligations through the back door, and possibly to set a precedent, so that in
other areas of the negotiations the same ambition could be advanced, which Chile believed wasneither justified nor reasonable.
42. The picture in the dispute settlement negotiations was a complicated one.  Two months before
the deadline set to conclude the negotiations, Members still had a large number of proposals where the
degree of divergence was higher than that of convergence, and Chile reiterated its call to the Special
Session Chairman to come forward as soon as possible with a document which would make itpossible to focus discussions on only those issues which improved and clarified the DSU and on
which Members could reach a consensus before the end of May.  Chile would not object to the rest of
the issues being discussed subsequently and, if necessary, a new mandate being sought in Cancún to
continue such discussions.
43. On implementation, Chile believed that each issue should be analyzed on the basis of its
specific merits and that there was no one-size-fits-all solution.  Some issues should be resolved
immediately, while others required greater technical discussion, and yet others on which consensus
was not possible.  Among the latter, the extension of the additional protection of geographic
indications to products other than wines and spirits was of particular interest to the European
Communities and other developed countries.  Chile wished to reiterate that there was no negotiatingmandate in this area, and that in any case, this was an area that was far from being ripe for a
negotiating mandate because it required a serious, responsible and transparent technical discussion toTN/C/M/8
Page 9
enable Members to assess its costs and consequences.  Chile had been struck by the attitude of some
delegations of taking this issue hostage, making progress on other implementation items subject to
progress on it.  This way, these Members were in fact putting off solutions to many other
implementation issues which were of interest to developing countries, thus making the name of this
round devoid of any meaning.
44. Finally, his delegation wished to emphasize the different linguistic terms used in this
organization.  Some issues were referred to as being related to development, such as S&D treatment,
TRIPS and Public Health and implementation, as if the issue of market access was not a development
issue.  It was indispensable to the development prospects of developing countries that the issues at the
very core of the negotiations be addressed, starting with agriculture.  Although progress in other areas
had been generally positive, Chile recognized that the deadlock in agriculture had had a negative
impact on all the rest.  His delegation was concerned about the further process before Cancún,because the expectations of many depend upon the progress made in the next few months.  Chile
believed it was indispensable that there be a radi cal change of attitude and a serious commitment to
negotiate, which had not been seen so far.  Over the next months, it was essential to outline a package
to make it possible to make progress in the negotiations and which reflected overall balance.  This
would require flexibility, as Chile had been in many areas beginning with agriculture, and Chilereiterated its desire to make progress in the negotiations in full respect of the mandate agreed by
Ministers in Doha.
45. The representative of Brazil said that all Members had been working intensively over the
previous two weeks in different formats to better understand each others' concerns and identify areas
of convergence.  One could not minimize the seriousness of the present situation, for it was sufficientto read the world's media whose assessment of the state of the negotiations was that it was critical, and
this news was read by those who had to make critical decisions on international trade.  The credibility
of the negotiations was at stake, and this was linked to the time-frames and Members' capacity to deal
with the stages of the negotiations.  Something ha d to be done about this situation, but not just
crossing one's arms nor engaging in a destructive exercise of blame shifting.  Instead, Membersshould redouble their efforts to conclude the Doha mandate's negotiations within the prescribed time-
frame and respecting the integrity of the mandate.  Brazil was prepared to do this, as it had indicated
regularly, most especially in the previous two weeks in the agriculture negotiations.  Brazil noted with
appreciation that the Agriculture Special Session Chairman was prepared to continue his consultations
on technical aspects on all fronts to promote progress in the agriculture dossier, which represented the
core of the negotiations.  Brazil highlighted this because it was extremely important.  As his
colleague, the Under Secretary-General for Integration and Economic Affairs, had indicated over thepast few days, there was an inescapable parallelism between the negotiation for modalities for
agriculture and other issues, most notably the modalities for non-agriculture with its approaching
deadline.
46. The representative of South Africa said that, after listening to the reports of the various
negotiating groups, his delegation regretted that Members were no further ahead in the negotiations
than when Ministers had met in Sydney last November.  Members had not been able to resolve the
issues of S&D treatment, implementation and TRIPS and Public Health, and most recently the
deadline for agricultural modalities had been missed.  Consequently, a real prospect existed for
missing the May deadline in non-agricultural market access.  The Doha agenda had been constructed
in a manner that accommodated the interests and concerns of all WTO Members and was balanced.  Itshould be recalled that in order to reach an ambitious outcome in agriculture, which South Africa saw
as the most critical market access issue in this Round, Members had agreed to a comprehensive
negotiating agenda that contained the four Singapore issues, among others.
47. It should also be recalled that a significant part of the overall balance that Ministers had
agreed to in Doha involved the balance in the negotiating process as expressed in the deliberate
staging of a series of interim deadlines.  These deadlines, or milestones, contained a logic that aimed
to build confidence among developing countries by resolving, up front, outstanding issues of criticalTN/C/M/8
Page 10
concern to them, namely implementation, S&D treatment and TRIPS and Public Health.  The date set
to agree to modalities in agriculture had also been deliberate as it would unlock political will, and
create the basis for all Members to engage in meaningful preparations for a decision in Cancún on
launching negotiations on the Singapore issues.  In failing to meet these deadlines, the balance in the
process had been disrupted with possible negative repercussions on the substance of the negotiations.This raised questions on Members' ability to conc lude the Round within the agreed time-frame, unless
urgent action was taken well before Cancún.  It was not useful to engage in blame shifting, but it was
clear that the process lacked leadership.  The major players had been instrumental in bringing about
this condition, and while all Members should take responsibility, the major players bore an additional
duty to put the process back on track.
48. With regard to the challenges ahead, South Africa suggested that the Director-General and the
Chairman of the General Council propose resolution to the issues of S&D treatment andimplementation in a staged manner.  This approach had served Members well in the lead up to the
Doha Ministerial Conference, and could deliver similar results now.  On TRIPS and Public Health,
South Africa remained convinced that a consensus on the Chairman's text of 16 December 2002 was
possible.  To advance the agricultural negotiations, two major issues needed to be addressed
simultaneously.  First, Members had to define precisely S&D provisions in agriculture that addressedthe erosion of preferences, and ensured that multilateral liberalisation did not shift adjustment costs to
poor farmers in developing countries.  Second, Members needed to keep a clear focus on tackling in a
decisive manner those protection and support policies in the major markets that suffocated the
development prospects of developing countries.  Developed countries should not use the legitimate
concerns of vulnerable and poor developing countries to deflect attention from their responsibility todismantle policies that caused massive distortions in global markets.  If Members addressed these
challenges soon, the important balance in the process and timing of the negotiations agreed in Doha
would be able to be restored.  It would also allow a focused attention on the detailed technical work
and preparations for Cancún and, at the same time, create an environment conducive to taking
appropriate decisions there.
49. The representative of Thailand said her delegation was disappointed by the missed deadline
for the establishment of modalities in agricult ure.  The progress and level of ambition in the
agriculture negotiations would be a benchmark to progress on other areas of the negotiations, and
Thailand hoped that the level of ambition would be enhanced before Cancún.  Her delegation agreed
with the Chairman's words at the informal session that delegations had to overcome the
disappointment and tackle the tasks before them with new energy.  Some delegations appeared to
believe that given the polarized positions in some main negotiating areas, it might not be possible tocomplete all the work before Cancún.  But Thailand urged Members not to lose their optimism and
strong will for success, which would bring about mutu al benefits to all.  Members might need to step
back from the table to be able to see clearly all elements on it so they could decide how best to tackle
the issues.  Her delegation did not foresee failure if all Members faithfully collaborated.  She recalled
that in the informal session, there had been a sense of keeping the momentum going since Memberscould not afford to fail to implement the Doha mandate.
50. Thailand wished to underline that the mandates on the issues of interest to developing
countries should be fulfilled before Cancún, especially those in which the deadlines had been missed.
There had to be a positive outcome on agriculture, TRIPS and Public Health, and S&D treatment.
Thailand wished also to reaffirm its commitment to the work ahead, and the levels of ambition set out
by Ministers in Doha.  Members needed to work harder at every level, both in capitals and in Geneva,
and might need more dialogue.  Informal small group meetings conducted by Friends of the Chair
might have to be intensified at high levels, on issues which were difficult to resolve at the technical
level.  However, the principle of transparency should be preserved.
51. The representative of Nigeria said his delegation hoped that collective efforts would result in
some measure of flexibility that would impact positively on the negotiations.  His delegationTN/C/M/8
Page 11
supported the statement by Morocco on behalf of the African Group, and wished to reaffirm its
support for the Doha mandate and the success of the Cancún meeting.
52. TRIPS and Public Health was an issue of immense significance since it involved lives,
thousands of which were lost every day from diseases like HIV/AIDS and Malaria as a result of the
inability to resolve this issue.  The compromise text of 16 December 2002, prepared by the formerSpecial Session Chairman of the Council for TRIPS, should have been accepted by all, and Nigeria
urged those Members with reservations about the 16 December text to join the consensus to address
this humanitarian issue.  A positive outcome would have a significant impact on other areas of the
negotiations.
53. It was regrettable that the Agriculture negotiations had been deadlocked.  Efforts had to be
made to move the process forward, and this was the responsibility of all Members.  His delegation
urged all Members to show the necessary political will and flexibility to ensure that the gap betweenthe various interests was bridged.  This was important because agriculture was a critical aspect of the
DDA without which the other aspects of the negotiat ions could not move forward on their own.  Apart
from that, Members knew only too well that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.  With
only a few months to Cancún, it was imperative that Members move swiftly to narrow differences and
proceed to examine what improvements could be made to the Chairman's revised text, given that theytended to agree that it was a good basis for making further progress.
54. The pace of the negotiation on services should take into consideration the capacity constraints
of African countries.  Most of these countries were unable to meet the indicative deadlines, and it was
quite clear that they would require more time to catch up with the process.  At the same time, his
delegation wished to express the view that ther e should be balanced progress between the various
components of the negotiation on services.  Similarly, there should be balance between the
negotiation on services and other issues, in particular TRIPS and Public Health, implementation
issues, S&D treatment as well as agriculture.  The negotiations in services should ensure benefits to
both developed and developing countries in accordance with Article IV, and should take into
consideration Article XIX that linked liberalization in services to the level of development ofindividual Members, and flexibility for developing countries for opening fewer sectors.  It should also
remove overburdened visa requirements and ensure mutual recognition of qualifications, in order for
African countries to benefit from Mode 4 on movement of natural persons.
55. On non-agricultural market access, Nigeria could not support any proposal or modalities
which aimed at complete elimination of tariffs.  Li kewise, it could not support the use of applied rates
as a starting point for tariff reductions.  The negotiations could only progress on the basis of bound
rates.  The question of less than full reciprocity and S&D treatment for developing countries werecritical elements to be given equal attention as any other core element in the negotiations.  Any
formula eventually adopted for the core modality should, by necessity, factor these crucial elements
into the calculations.  The modalities should also give enough flexibility, particularly for African
countries, to implement their obligations conveniently.  In this regard, it was Nigeria's expectation that
developing countries would have longer time-frames to implement their obligations.  One critical areaof concern to Nigeria was the issue of erosion of the preferential tariff margins currently enjoyed by
some Members.  While this was a difficult issue for the Membership, Nigeria hoped that Members
would be able to resolve the matter amicably.  Nigeria expected the elimination of all non-tariff
barriers, which effectively blocked access to markets of the developed countries.  On environmental
goods, Nigeria agreed with the majority of Members that any definition given to environmental goodsshould not be based on process and production methods.
56. On the negotiations on rules, Members should first address the interpretation of paragraph 28
of the Doha Declaration to arrive at a common understanding of exactly what was required.  This
would help to determine clearly what objectives Members sought to pursue and achieve, and enable
them to define their levels of ambition in the negotiations.  On S&D, it was unfortunate that threedeadlines had been missed without clear recommendations to the General Council for action.  TheTN/C/M/8
Page 12
African Group had submitted proposals to the Special Session which it believed could strengthen
S&D treatment so that the provisions could be made more precise, effective and operational.  The
level of engagement on the proposal and other proposals from developing countries and LDCs seemed
inadequate.  Nigeria was not in favour of any cat egorisation of the agreed issues, since it would be
difficult, or impossible, as a way forward.  The most appropriate way of moving the process forwardwas for the General Council to give clear guidance on the mandate contained in paragraph 44 of the
Doha Declaration and paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-Related Concerns before
further work continued.
57. Finally, the DSU had been negotiated to enforce multilateral trade disciplines.  However, due
to the obvious nature of the Understanding, operational problems had arisen.  Hence, Ministers in
Doha had mandated the DSB to negotiate improvements and clarifications of the Understanding by
May 2003.  Pursuant to the mandate, the African Group had submitted a proposal aimed at assistingdeveloping countries make effective use of the Understanding and to guarantee compliance by
Members of DSB rulings and recommendations.  The system, as it stood, made it difficult for most
developing countries – even if they obtain a clear legal ruling – to enforce the ruling.  Nigeria strongly
hoped that the Special Session would be able to conclude its work by May 2003.
58. The representative of Ecuador said that it had been useful for his delegation to hear the views
and opinions of senior officials in the informal session.  The Chairman's wish to have such an
exchange of views deserved the Members' firmest support since it promoted bringing positions
together, which was essential for such complex negotiations.  Ecuador would continue to participate
in this process to achieve the ambitions set by Ministers.  However, it was impossible to hide the fact
that there was considerable divergence in positions on several issues, and these had to be broughtcloser together in the shortest time possible.  Nor could Members sidestep the fact that this was more
pressing for some countries than for others.  Ecuador, as a developing country, continued to hope that
the Doha mandates would be realized but, unfortunately, it had concerns in some areas and
disappointment in others.  It was not encouraging to see time-frames being missed in four important
areas: TRIPS and Public Health, S&D treatment, implementation issues and, the most far-reaching,commitments on modalities for agriculture.  His delegation was concerned at the questioning, and in
some cases the non-observance, of the Doha mandate, which pointed to a lack of political will to
abide by the commitments that had been assumed by all Members.
59. For developing countries whose economies depended to a large extent on agriculture, which
provided a high proportion of employment, the ne gotiations were not just a means to maximize
business profitability or to raise the existing high levels of well-being in the developed regions of the
planet, but rather a means of subsistence for much of the population in a large number of developingcountries.  For Ecuador – a highly agricultural country – compliance with the Doha mandate in
agriculture was of the highest importance, and it was on this issue that progress in other issues of the
Round would depend.
60. Ecuador was aware that all countries had to contribute to a substantial improvement in
agricultural market access.  Nevertheless, developing countries like Ecuador could not roll-back basictariff protection, particularly if their tariff levels were already low and the country did not have nor
could it finance production in export subsidies.  The situation was even worse if some developed
countries, showing not even the slightest bit of sens itivity, tried to maintain enormous distortions for
as long as a decade.  These distortions were created by vast amounts of subsidies for exports and
disproportionate levels of domestic support while, at the same time, applying prohibitive tariffs on abroad basis of important sectors of interest which constituted true import prohibitions.  The period for
the reduction of, with a view to phasing out,  all types of export subsidies and substantial reductions in
domestic support should be shorter and should cover all WTO Members equally.  Fair conditions for
competition on an equal footing should be guaranteed in all markets, particularly those of developed
countries and in the context of South-South trade.  This would avoid producing another systemicimbalance, this time between developing countries.TN/C/M/8
Page 13
61. In view of its experience, Ecuador had made a number of contributions to the negotiations for
the modification for the DSU.  These inputs were based on the systemic shortcomings noted in the
course of the banana disputes, particularly regarding procedural sequencing and prompt compliance
with recommendations and rulings, and were aimed at  avoiding rulings ending up, as in many cases,
in Pyrrhic victories.  Ecuador's interest was to see the negotiations reach consensus on issues itconsidered fundamental for the functioning and credibility of the entire dispute settlement system.
For this reason, it had maintained a flexible position regarding contributions from other Members, as
could be seen from the evolution of such contributions, without affecting substance which was in line
with the interests of the system, such as survei llance of compliance, development of measures to
ensure compliance, particularly compensation, and the necessary S&D treatment for developing
countries.  Ecuador would continue to work with the Chairman of the DSB and other Members in
these negotiations.
62. Ecuador believed it should be recalled that the application of S&D treatment was one of the
mechanisms that would make it possible to reach a tr ue balance in the results of the negotiations.  In
this context, the importance of S&D, which should be applied genuinely in line with the actual
content of the Doha mandate, was due to its binding nature to the benefit of developing countries.  Its
effective application all areas of trade obviously depended on the flexibility of developed countries.
63. Although the negotiations on trade in services were further ahead than other areas of
negotiation, this did not necessary mean that there had been mutual benefits.  In fact, up to now it had
not been possible to clearly and confidently establish either the benefits or the drawback of
liberalization in trade in services pertaining to developing countries.  It was important that, together
with the reaffirmation of S&D treatment in the Doha Declaration, Members effectively apply the
principles contained in the GATS and in the Guidel ines and Procedures for the Negotiations, such as
progressive liberalization and appropriate flexibility for developing countries.
64. For a developing country such as Ecuador, which could see no willingness to promote
reforms in the agricultural sector, it was not appropriate that an ambitious programme of reform was
being encouraged in services.  It was also not appropriate that no real progress had been made in thereduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs and tariff escalation for industrial goods, because
this would imply condemning developing countries to producing goods without added value for the
foreseeable future.
65. Nevertheless, Ecuador would continue to support the Chairman's efforts and initiatives to
ensure that the development round met the objectives set out by Ministers and to ensure that the
Ministerial Conference in Cancún would bear fruit for all Members.  Ecuador was convinced that
trade based on fair rules and on real S&D treatment, which reflected the existing structuralasymmetries and imbalances among Members, was a valuable and indispensable instrument for
growth and development, as long as Members recognized the WTO as the legitimate and the
appropriate forum to continue the task of improv ing and consolidating the rules of the multilateral
trading system.
66. The representative of Bulgaria, referring to the report by the Chairman of the Agriculture
Special Session, said that as his delegation had pointed out at that group's formal meeting, it did not
object to further work in the negotiations on agriculture, including, in particular, the organization of
technical and other consultations by the Chairman.  At that formal meeting, Bulgaria had proposed
that a decision to continue work in the negotiations on agriculture be taken by the TNC.  Bulgaria still
believed that, procedurally, this was the more appropriate way to act, therefore, it supported theproposal by Brazil at the informal TNC session on 2 April to direct the Special Session on Agriculture
to that effect.  If, however, Brazil's proposal was not accepted, in a spirit of good will and
compromise, Bulgaria was prepared to be pragmatic and would not object to the holding of
consultations by the Chairman of the Special Session, even in the absence of a decision by the TNC.
Bulgaria agreed it was within the functions of the Chairman of the Special Session to holdconsultations relating to the negotiations, including in the light of the third sentence of paragraph 14TN/C/M/8
Page 14
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, and it was within the Special Session Chairman's discretion to
hold such consultations without a specific decision by the Special Session.
67. Bulgaria was interested in the technical consul tations and intended to participate actively in
them, and could not be accused of holding up work in any area of the negotiations.  However,
Bulgaria continued to be concerned that negotiating subjects were not treated on an equal footing,including from a procedural point of view, and the comparison between agriculture and
implementation-related issues was an example of this.  Whereas in agriculture there would be a
smooth continuation of work after the expiration of the deadline for the establishment of modalities,
for implementation issues it had been proposed that, after the deadline, work on them would be
suspended.  Opponents of these issues, who were employing procedural manoeuvres, using as a
pretext the deadline agreed in Doha, had effectively blocked further negotiations on implementation
issues.
68. At the moment of the expiration of the deadline, it had been argued that implementation
issues could not continue to be discussed by the regular bodies and that they had to be shifted to the
TNC, which had the responsibility to take the "appropriate action" envisaged by paragraph 12 of the
Doha Ministerial Declaration.  On the other hand, these same delegations which had blocked further
substantive work on implementation issues in the regular bodies after the expiration of the deadline,currently refused a substantive discussion in the TNC.  Some of them even denied the existence of a
mandate for negotiations on implementation issues.  For them, the word "negotiations" in paragraph
12 of the Doha Declaration did not mean what it said and what it meant elsewhere in the Declaration.
If a delegation denied the very existence of a mandate for negotiations on implementation issues or if,
for some of them, such as in the case of geographical indications, it was claimed that they were notimplementation issues, although Ministers had explicitly designated them as such in the Declaration,
then it was hard to pretend that such delegation was negotiating in good faith.
69. The net result was that there was no substantive work on implementation issues and it was not
without deep concern that Bulgaria was obliged to note that they were not included on the agenda of
the present meeting nor on that of the 2 April informal session.  Bulgaria believed that the proceduralmanoeuvres which had been used to block the substantive work on negotiating issues, including those
employed after the expiration of deadlines, especially on implementation issues, could be overcome.
The Chairman of the TNC, exercising his overall responsibilities, could play a special role in breaking
the procedural deadlock by initiating consultations on the substance of all of these issues.  For such
consultations, the Chairman did not need any additional mandate or any special decision by the TNC.
70. The representative of Poland said that, from the present meeting and the informal session,
Members could be comforted by the positive attitudes that seemed to be emerging.  Members could
now start developing positive linkages.  The Chairpersons' reports gave the impression that progress
by the end of July might be achieved by focusing on issues that had the greatest potential for progress
and those which were of strategic importance but controversial.
71. On agriculture, Poland believed that now Members had expressed quite extensively their
concerns and had delineated their freedom of manoeuvre, there seemed to be a wide scope for them toengage in a more intense exploration of their respective interests and concerns.  Poland appreciated
the Agriculture Special Session Chairman's announcement of an intensive programme of work, and
believed that these sessions would provide Members with sufficient opportunity for monitoring the
process towards its ultimate positive conclusion.
72. On services, the current rate of progress would indicate that by the end of April, Members
might reasonably expect to have offers on the table covering three-quarters of all business in
transborder and domestic services.  This appeared to be a critical mass large enough to engage in
meaningful plurilateral and bilateral negotiations.  In the non-agricultural market access negotiations,
it was reasonable to expect, that a broad understanding might be reached at least on the conceptual
framework of the final negotiating package.  On dispute settlement, it was realistic to expect that aTN/C/M/8
Page 15
framework of a negotiating package might be outlined by the end of May.  On S&D treatment,
Members were well set to engage in a realistic and candid debate on all aspects of this complex and
very sensitive issue.  If his delegation's reading of the reports and of the situation was correct, and if
the programme of work was based on such an understanding, then Members should be reasonably
confident that they would not go to Cancún empty-handed.
73. The representative of China noted the uneven development of the negotiations and while his
delegation was encouraged at the progress in services and in the rules Special Sessions, it was
disappointed at the lack of progress on development issues, such as agriculture.  China was also
disappointed at the missing of deadlines set by Mi nisters at Doha.  These were important deadlines,
particularly for many developing members.  S&D treatment, implementation issues, TRIPS and
Public Health and agriculture were all important elements in the negotiations of the Development
Round.  China strongly believed that progress or breakthrough here would have a very positive impacton confidence-building of developing Members for the Round and would produce positive linkages
and help promote progress on other issues.
74. China was pleased that the Chairman himself was working on a possible solution for the
outstanding implementation issues.  The Chairman of the General Council was working on S&D
treatment issues.  The United States had hinted to Members that the TRIPS and Public Health issuewould be solved before Cancún.  Judging for the st atements made at the informal session, delegations
were fully committed to continuing with technical work on agricultural modalities.  China hoped there
would be breakthroughs or progress on all fronts or at least on some of these issues, which would be a
good boost for the negotiations on other sectors.  His delegation would engage actively in the entire
process and work closely with other delegations for a fruitful outcome at Cancún.
75. The representative of Paraguay said that his delegation agreed with the overview of the
situation in the negotiations outlined by the Chairman  at the informal session.  He wished to highlight
Paraguay's concern at another deadline being missed, in particular because this concerned the
establishment of modalities for agriculture.  This would have an impact on the other sectors of the
negotiations.  He would not reiterate Paraguay's major interest in this area of negotiations, but he didwish to point out that the frustration and dissatisfaction of developing countries could have an impact
on the credibility of the multilateral trading system as a whole.
76. Despite this, fortunately there was now an opportunity to take matters in hand again and take
the path towards building up consensus to ensure that trade liberalization was reconciled with
development.  To achieve such a goal, Members should create a positive atmosphere for the
forthcoming meeting in Cancún.  Paraguay hoped that its negotiating partners understood that to
achieve evolution and progress in the negotiations to comply with the development agenda, it wasessential to have a stable and balanced framework for trade in agricultural and industrial products and
services, while at the same time reducing, until they were fully eliminated, all obstacles that would
restrict trade and eliminating the distortions and discrimination which so many developing countries
had to face.
77. Orderly and balanced progress was required in the negotiations as a whole.  In the
Chairpersons' reports, there was considerable imbalance and his delegation wished to reiterate this
because progress had to be balanced.  Paraguay placed its trust in the Chairman's leadership, because
the negotiations needed to be guided and directed to meet the needs of the developing countries,
particularly those whose needs had not been met by the results of the Uruguay Round.
78. The representative of Argentina said that most, although not necessarily all, delegations were
extremely frustrated that establishment of the modalities for the agriculture negotiations had not been
possible by the deadline.  If one did not analyse what had transpired in the Agriculture Special
Session, it would be extremely difficult to find solutions.  An agreement on agricultural modalities
had not been reached because there was a group of delegations which, although they had stated that
they were prepared to negotiate, had in fact not accepted that the revised draft of the Special SessionTN/C/M/8
Page 16
Chairman would constitute a basis for the negotiations  aimed at establishing modalities.  This implied
that this group of countries was not prepared to work under the terms of the commitments entered into
in Doha.  There were other implications stemming from this.  In this respect paragraph 13 of the Doha
Declarations was relevant in terms of the elements it contained – the three pillars, S&D treatment and
non-trade concerns.
79. He wished to insist on the three pillars because in the course of the informal discussion in the
Agriculture Special Session, some delegations had spoken of four pillars in agriculture, which was a
matter of substantive importance to his delegation.  Argentina's perception of the situation was that
those Members' objective with regard to the three pillars – market access, export competition and
domestic support – was to postpone and erode the process of fundamental reform of agricultural trade
which should be based on these three pillars.  When, for example, it was suggested that, in the area of
market access, the liberalization process allow some tariffs to drop from a rate of 400% to 340%,these countries were suggesting that the present deficiencies in market access should continue.
80. On S&D treatment in the agriculture negotiations, which related to issues of major
development interest to an important group of countr ies in their efforts to become self-sufficient and
to increase their market access opportunities, there was an attempt to maintain the status-quo.  This
would imply that those countries would remain de pendent on preferences, when in fact what they
needed were compensatory mechanisms to enable them to undertake the transition to autonomy
without having to depend on unilateral mechanis ms which, over time, might erode their situation.
This point had also been made by the representative of the LDCs.
81. Non-trade concerns had to be taken into consideration in the agriculture negotiations.
However, in this area the truth was that these developed countries wanted to go back on what they hadconceded and impair the situation through actions in the areas of precautionary principles, labelling,
environment and intellectual property, as was the case of geographical indications.  As the Argentine
Vice-Minister had said at the informal session, Argentina was ready to continue working, as the
Special Session Chairman had suggested, on the basis of technical discussions, but this should not
imply that it was business as usual.  One could not hide the fact that this was a critical situationbecause of the implications on other areas of the negotiations.  Nor could one pretend that since
Members were working on technical issues they could forget the central issues – the three pillars.  Nor
could anyone guarantee that there would no repercussions on other areas of negotiation.
82. Turning to the negotiations on services, he said it was positive that the Special Session had
adopted modalities for autonomous liberalisation, which was an important matter for Argentina, given
the wide-ranging autonomous liberalization it had undertaken in services since the Uruguay Round.
However, work on modalities for special treatment fo r LDCs should be speeded up since the phase of
presentation of offers had started and the negotiations had to move ahead.
83. In the negotiations overall, reference had been made to the need for two types of balance.
First, balance between the rate of progress in the negotiations on market access on the one hand and
the negotiations on rules and disciplines on the other.  Second, balance in the different areas of the
Doha Work Programme, which concerned the overall balance in the negotiations as established byparagraph 49 of the Doha Declaration.
84. On the issue of the multilateral register for wines and spirits, Argentina, like Chile, was ready
to comply with the negotiating commitment entered into in Doha, and agreed that further informal
consultations should be carried out by the Chairman of the TRIPS Council Special Session.  However,
his delegation wished to point out that not many delegations had participated in the consultations heldthus far.  Argentina would encourage all Members, even those who believed they had no interest in
the issue, to express their points of view, such as on the legal effects of this register.  Argentina was in
favor of a system which was voluntary, not costly and which would not have a legal impact on those
who did not participate, but there were proposals which suggested such a binding nature, so that for
this reason, it was the interest of all Members to participate in these consultations.  There were veryTN/C/M/8
Page 17
deep divergences among delegations on most of the different elements which could clearly be seen in
the Chairman's paper under his responsibility and Argentina had some serious difficulties with several
of these components.
85. As for the future of the negotiating process on the register, Argentina wished to proceed
cautiously both on the time-frame as well as the substance, and was concerned that without dueconsultations and without giving due reflection to the many difficulties which many of the Members
had raised, a text might emerge which would not be helpful to the negotiating process.  On the
contrary, such a text might even make matters more difficult.  The TNC Chairman had often referred
to positive linkages, but Argentina believed such linkages had to flow in all directions.  Argentina
believed there were other areas in which positive linkages should be established and it was willing to
be constructive, even in areas where it did not have major interests in the negotiation.
86. The representative of Japan reiterated his country's engagement in the three important areas of
market access, namely agriculture, non-agricultural products and services, and in rules, which Japan
believed was important in support of real market access.  Development issues also loomed high on the
agenda.  TRIPS and Public Health needed to be dealt with before going into the Cancún process.  On
S&D treatment, his delegation wished to underline the need to take up proposals which were really
meaningful to developing countries.  On implementation issues, his delegation believed it would notbe prudent to take up all the issues in a uniform manner, but rather undertake work on areas where
there were prospects for a solution.
87. He wished to underline the importance of the four Singapore issues, which had been around
since 1996, and it was high time that negotiations be launched on them.  This was because, over the
last years, the world economy had becoming more globalized – a reality faced by all WTO Members,who all had a stake in these issues.  Japan also urged all Members to advance work on trade and
environment and the DSU and to meet the May deadlines.
88. The Round was comprehensive – there was something for everyone under the Single
Undertaking.  On the notion of balance, Members should first try to strike a balance in each
negotiating area, because each area had its unique characteristics which affected a balanced result inthat area.  The negotiators of that area should aim at balance within that particular area.  Then the
notion of overall balance within the Single Undertaking offered a backup to make everyone a winner
and to have no losers.  Each Member should judge its own definition of balance.  Japan's system of
democratic government required it to be accountable to its political, economic and civil society
constituencies.
89. Agriculture was often mentioned as the key area of the Doha Round, but the Round was of a
comprehensive nature and should not be a one-issue round.  However, Japan was aware of theimportance of world agricultural trade, espe cially to improve developing-country export
opportunities.  Japan had an important role in world agricultural trade, and for many years, it had been
the world's largest net importer of food, resulting in a self-sufficiency rate of only some 40% on a
calorie basis.  According to UNCTAD, Japan was the largest per-capita importer of food from
developing countries.  As of 1 April, the beginning of Japan's fiscal year, legislation had been enacted
to substantially expand the coverage of duty-free and quota-free agricultural and fishery products
from LDCs, as well as adding a substantial number of agricultural products to Japan's list of GSP
applicable to all developing countries, thereby restoring their preferential margins.
90. The representative of Barbados wished to express his country's disappointment at the lack of
progress in many of the areas of the Doha Work Programme in which it had an interest.  If Ministers
were to have a chance at working towards a successful outcome at Cancún, and thus optimize the
prospects for the remainder of the Round, they would have to be presented with a number elements as
a minimum.  Ministers should have before them evidence that concrete and substantial solutions had
been formulated on outstanding and unresolved implementation and S&D issues.  Likewise, they
should have evidence of the implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS andTN/C/M/8
Page 18
Public Health in a manner which addressed the needs of all WTO Members with insufficient or no
manufacturing capacities and with regard to all relevant areas of public health.
91. With regard to the Work Programme on Small Economies, Ministers should have before them
a meaningful outcome which comprised effective measures to facilitate fuller integration of small,
vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system.  On the working groups on trade, debt andfinance and on trade and transfer of technology, they should have recommendation on concrete steps
to be taken in these areas.  In the area of trade-related technical assistance and capacity building
activities delivered by the WTO, Ministers should have before them a re-affirmation and an update of
the useful and effective programmes, projects and arrangements which had been put in place.  With
regard to the LDCs, Ministers should have before them a comprehensive slate of measures aimed at
addressing the situation of these countries.
92. With regard to the negotiations on agriculture, Ministers should have before them negotiating
modalities which would ensure the survival of small agricultural sectors, such as that of Barbados, and
take adequate care of food security and non-trade concerns.  That would require reduction modalities
that not only gave these countries adequate time to make the necessary adjustments without having to
experience social and economic chaos, but would also preserve preferential arrangements during that
adjustment period and provide appropriate flexibility through the use of strategic or special productsand a safeguard mechanism that addressed needs.  Barbados supported the use of the Uruguay Round
formula because it was satisfied that of the proposed formulae, it best addressed its concerns.
However, if there was a better way, his delegation was willing to consider it.
93. For the negotiations on services, Ministers should have clear evidence before them that the
negotiations were being conducted in a manner whereby paragraph 15 of the Negotiating Guidelinesregarding the effective implementation of GATS Article IV was being operationalized, flexibility was
being accorded to developing countries to pace the liberalisation of their market in accordance with
their individual developmental needs, the size of economies of developing countries as well as the
needs of small service suppliers were being taken fully into account, and the capacity constraints and
special needs of small developing economies were recognised and taken into account.
94. On market access for non-agricultural products, Ministers should have before them
negotiating modalities which included the effective im plementation of the principle of less than full
reciprocity, S&D treatment for strategic products which were of critical importance and interest to
developing countries and LDCs, a paced reduction of tariffs, the granting of credit for autonomous
liberalisation measures undertaken by developing countries since the end of the Uruguay Round, and
the adoption of measures to mitigate against the negative impact of the erosion of preferential market
access.
95. Barbados, in the light of the many references to levels of ambition, could not afford the
luxury of having lofty ambitions in any one area.  Rather, its objective was simply to ensure its
survival as a viable economy in these tempestuous times  and to strive to participate effectively in the
multilateral trading system.
96. The Chairman said the Chairpersons' reports had indicated that there were still differences in
delegations' positions, which meant that there was still a heavy workload ahead.  But delegations
should not be daunted by this.  Deadlines had been missed, but not through a lack of commitment, but
rather because the tasks were numerous and complex.  It was therefore important that participants had
reaffirmed their commitment to the letter of the Doha Declaration and to the overall ambition it
contained.  Participants now had to start real negotiations.  He believed that they had to do so with theaim of completing the Round on time, and that they had to work diligently on all fronts and to
integrate an increasing degree of political input.
97. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the reports of the bodies established by it and
of the statements made.TN/C/M/8
Page 19
2. Future work
98. The Chairman said the first thing he wished to stress was the urgency of the work.  It was true
that Cancún was 5 months away, but that was no reason for complacency.  In fact, the actual time
available to delegations for their preparations and for making the necessary progress in Geneva wasmuch shorter.  There were about 10 weeks before the TNC's subsidiary bodies should begin to finalize
their reports and recommendations for submission to the mid-July meeting of the TNC.  In this period,
the work would intensify, both at the negotiating group and TNC level.  There would be a need for
more informal consultations and more contact among delegations.  He would go on working together
with the Chairpersons of the bodies reporting to the TNC and in close cooperation with the Chairman
of the General Council.  He would continue to work in full respect of the principles of transparency
and inclusiveness to which he was committed and which the guidelines required.
99. To be successful, the work in Geneva would require the continuing close support of capitals.
This was why he was pleased to see so many senior capital-based officials in Geneva during the
present week.  Meetings of these officials were not a substitute for the excellent and essential work of
Geneva representatives – on the contrary, they should reinforce and encourage it.  The conversations
these officials had among themselves could also make a valuable contribution to bridging gaps.  Hehoped they would take back to their capitals a renewed sense of the necessity and urgency of political
commitment to sustaining the momentum of the negotiations.  He would certainly continue to stress
this need in his contacts with Ministers.  He would also hope that, following the present week of
meetings, capitals would be reviewing their instruct ions to negotiators, so that they could engage
more intensively and with more flexibility.
100. The representative of Cuba said his delegation agreed with the Chairman that the work had to
intensify and that Members needed to use the remaining time to reach agreement.  His delegation
suggested that more progress would be made if the informal TNC sessions were structured on a
thematic basis.  One theme, for example, could be to discuss development issues – implementation,
S&D treatment and TRIPS and Public Health – and then move on to agriculture and services.  Thiswould allow a better focus on the problems and possible solutions.  Formal meetings could then be
more of a general stocktaking.
101. Cuba believed the negotiations were in a critical situation, and a message had to be sent to the
public that the DDA was not a fairy tale, but rath er a reality, and that there would be concrete
outcomes from it.  If Members were not able to reach concrete outcomes on development, then
workers, farmers, and small and medium-sized businesses, particularly in developing countries, would
become critical of the Organization and see this as a way of maintaining the status-quo ininternational relations.  They would believe that WTO could not help development and solving the
serious problems the world faced.  It was thus urgent to ensure that there was the political will to take
steps to ensure that the Doha mandates were complied with and concrete results achieved, so that
world public opinion was not affected negatively.
102. The positive linkages referred to by the Chai rman meant solving development problems and
problems related to agriculture to the benefit of developing countries.  If not, there would be no
progress in other areas, particularly with regard to  the Singapore issues.  Members needed to resolve
the imbalances resulting from the Uruguay Round before assuming other commitments.  The
agreements which might result on the Singapore issues should only impose obligations on developed
countries, since these issues were not related to market access or to development.  Cuba did not find itencouraging that developing countries continued to be overburdened with new commitments without
seeing substantive commitments to solve their problems.  Cuba hoped that the Chairman would
continue his efforts to reach positive results and that the Chairpersons of the negotiating groups would
also continue working in the same direction.TN/C/M/8
Page 20
103. The representative of Hong Kong, China said  that at the informal session it had been
encouraging to hear many delegations express their continued commitments to make the Cancún
Ministerial Conference a success and to conclude the Doha Round by 1 January 2005.  Unfortunately,
his delegation had not sensed noticeable movement in negotiating positions, and it was clearly not
enough to just repeat articles of faith or rhetoric each time.  Members owed it to themselves and to theOrganization to translate what they said into action and results.
104. Members would be working hard in the TNC and in every negotiating group in the coming
months, but frankly, if they continued to stick more or less to opening positions in every subject, the
hard work would produce little, if anything, for Cancún.  To get results, Members had to be prepared
to move from their initial positions and make comp romises.  They should adopt an incremental or
building block approach and be ready to engage and to compromise in small areas that could
eventually be built up to a respectable package.
105. In this regard, Hong Kong, China would try its very best to work with all delegations and be
as flexible as possible in every negotiating area.  Needless to say, his delegation would also expect
developed Members to show more leadership in the process, since there was no substitute for political
leadership from the major players in order to be able to move ahead.  Such a demonstration would set
a good example for others to follow and show more signs of flexibility, particularly in areas ofconcern to developing Members, such as S&D treatment.  Moreover, every effort should be made to
resolve the issues of S&D and TRIPS and Public Health before Cancún.
106. As Hong Kong China had said at the informal session, provided that Members had renewed
high-level political commitment, and with a concerted effort by all Geneva-based negotiators, there
was no reason why the DDA could not be concluded on schedule.  As the global economic outlookremained uncertain, it was imperative to conclude the DDA on time so as to boost business
confidence and promote global economic development, particularly among developing Members.  His
delegation would continue to work with the Chairman and other Members to make this happen.
107. The representative of Morocco, speaking on behalf of the African Group
, said the African
Group welcomed the Chairman's intentions for the work leading up to Cancún.  The Group would
provide its full cooperation so that this work could be successful.  So as to make optimum use of the
remaining time to address issues and find appropriate solutions, the Group believed it was time to
intensify the work and not wait until the last minute, such as July.  If not, delegations would have to
continue work in the various bodies and, at the same time, participate in consultations on a declaration
or other document to be adopted in Cancún.  The African Group, as the Chairman knew, was poor in
resources, particularly human resources, and could not be omnipresent.  The Group wanted to play an
active and responsible role and make a positive contribution, but for this to happen, the preparationsfor Cancún would have to be well organized.  If all of the work was left to the last minute, Members
would be taking a risk, and the African Group was not willing to assume this risk.  The African Group
was fully committed to ensuring success.  It hoped that both the preparatory work and the work on
substantive issues would take place in the most transparent possible way.  The Group was satisfied
with the efforts that the Chairman had made thus far to facilitate the participation of all delegationsand to ensure that transparency was not just a slog an, but rather an actual principle guiding the work.
The African Group was reassured by this and put its full confidence in the Chairman.  If the work
continued along these lines, the Group believed Cancún would be a success.
108. The representative of the Slovak Republic said the discussion at the informal session had
proved useful.  It had sent an important positive message and showed that understanding different
Members' concerns was an important element which could help move negotiations forward.  This
might be the way towards convergence.  Her delegation shared the view expressed by many
delegations that, despite possible negative impressions as a consequence of the missed deadlines,
some positive trends were now visible.  This ha d been highlighted by the commitment expressed by
all delegations to continue the process and to redouble  their efforts to reach at least partial solutions.
Almost all delegations had shown their readiness to narrow the existing wide gaps in positions andTN/C/M/8
Page 21
many had referred to building up future work on positive rather than negative linkages.  The challenge
for Members was to work together in a more effective way.  Her delegation stood ready to contribute
to this process, and wished to express its confidence in the Chairman.
109. The representative of India said that the Singapore issues did not fall within the purview of
the TNC, although his delegation realised that the statements made by other delegations had been in
the context of the decisions to be taken at Cancún.  India's position on these issues was well known
and had been clearly articulated at Doha and on various subsequent occasions.  Nevertheless, as
decided by Ministers at Doha, his delegation had fully engaged in discussions in the Working Groups
and the Council for Trade in Goods.  India had raised  its concerns and listened carefully to the points
made by the proponents of these issues.  However,  it had heard no compelling argument thus far to
persuade it to revise its position.  On many of the points identified in paragraphs 22 and 25 of the
Doha Ministerial Declaration, India had noted diff erences of opinion even among the proponents.  On
the issues raised in paragraphs 26 and 27, many of the questions asked still remained unanswered.
Launching negotiations without clarity regarding the scope and content would be like putting the cart
before the horse, and India would be extremely uncomfortable with such a process.  At the informal
session, some delegations had suggested that multilateral agreements on these issues were in the
interests of all, but India remained unconvinced.  The fact remained that Members were strugglingwith the existing agreements, as evidenced by the fact that none of the deadlines decided upon by the
Ministers at Doha had been met.  Further expansion of the agenda, in India's opinion would be
unproductive.
110. He wished to also address the question of the contours of the decisions to be taken at Cancún.
At this point in time, it was extremely difficult to envisage the shape of things likely to emerge duringthe next few months.  Much would depend upon the Members' ability to complete work on issues with
pending deadlines, including those already missed.  This again would depend on strong political
commitment, and India believed that the Chairman would have to play a very significant role in this
process.  His delegation would also urge the Chairman to look at, in consultation with Heads of
Delegations, how he could make the meetings of the TNC more productive and purposeful.
111. The representative of Colombia said that both the Chairpersons' reports and the discussion at
the informal session had shown that considerable ef forts had been made to ensure the orderly planning
of work, moving from discussion of organizational aspects to substantive issues.  There had been a
high level of involvement from developing countries in terms of proposals and papers, which
indicated a high degree of commitment by all Members.  Nevertheless, Members had failed to meet a
number of deadlines.  These deadlines had not been set by chance, but were rather interrelated and in
a certain sequence, and missing them raised concer ns regarding overall success in the future.  In
particular, deadlines had not been met on issues of interest to developing countries, such as access to
medicines under the TRIPS agreement, S&D treatment , implementation issues and modalities for the
negotiations on agriculture.  However, Colombia was optimistic, believing that it was still possible to
find an early harvest in these areas and that Members should continue their work in this respect.
Nevertheless, achievements in these areas, together with the intensive technical work Members wouldundertake, would not be sufficient.  Significant political impetus was also required, and for this,
capitals would have to participate more actively in meetings such as the present one and others that
the Chairman would convene in the future.
112. In the context of the need for greater political impetus, it should be clear that a lack of
progress in agriculture would certainly affect other areas of the negotiations.  Therefore, in parallel tothe technical work, Members, under the leadership of Chairman and the General Council Chairman,
needed to begin preparatory work for the Ministeria l Conference in an inclusive and transparent way.
This had to take place on the basis of a realistic scenario, on the basis of the results achieved and those
Members hoped to achieve in the coming months.  This should make it possible to have a clear picture
of the nature of the Cancún Ministerial Conference and the possible results from it.  As stated at theinformal session, delegations could not expect Ministers to solve in five days what had not been
solved in a year and a half.TN/C/M/8
Page 22
113. One could not avoid a frank diagnosis of the situation.  The format of the Cancún meeting
should be discussed and approved by Members, and there should be no surprises, particularly on the
eve of the meeting.  The negotiating process should not be confused with the preparatory process for
Cancún, and the two processes should advance in parallel and simultaneously.  Colombia wished to
stress that political decisions were now required.  Members should not be tempted to kill themessenger, but they should rather listen, change attitudes and work constructively.  The success of the
Round was of extreme importance to Colombia, which was why it would continue to work
constructively with the Chairman and all Members to ensure its success.
114. The representative of Switzerland said there were five months to the Cancún Ministerial
Conference, and there was a lot of work to be done.  Switzerland was convinced that progress was
required in all areas of the negotiations if Cancún was to be successful.  Success at Cancún meant that
the requisite decisions had to be taken so that the process moved forward and that appropriate politicalguidance could be given by Ministers where necessary.  Efforts were required by everyone and
Switzerland assured the Chairman that it was ready to  contribute actively to the work in a committed
manner, to make progress in all areas of the negotiations.
115. The representative of Hungary supported the views expressed by a number of delegations
regarding going ahead with work in all areas to  set the stage for a successful outcome of the
Ministerial Conference at Cancún.  With regard to the statement by Argentina that some delegations
were not willing to negotiate seriously on the important issue of agriculture, his delegation believed
that, while what constituted serious negotiations was in the eye of the beholder, there was no question
that negotiations were continuing and that nobody had proposed to block further progress in this area,
including the useful proposals made by the Agriculture Special Session Chairman on further technicalwork in many areas.  This contrasted with the attitude of Argentina and a few other countries, who
wished to block totally further discussions a nd exchanges of substantive views on the issue of
geographical indications (GIs).  As the Chairman had pointed out, this issue was at the level of the
TNC, now for the fourth month, and all the Chairman was able to say was that he would carry on
further consultations on all implementation issues, including on GIs.  There were ideas on the table
under which discussions would take place on all implementation issues without prejudging the
outcome of these discussions, but still allowing a substantive exchange to clarify the issues and
prepare for possible action by the TNC, as required by paragraph 12.  This possibility unfortunately
continued to be blocked, and from the statements at the present meeting and at the informal session,
there was no intention whatsoever to lift this procedural blockage.
116. Much had been said about the dangers of negative linkages, and this was a prime example of
what was provoking negative linkages from other delegations who had a certain interest in this area.Hungary did not question that countries that had an interest in a major outcome in agriculture did not
see it in their interest for anything to occur in GIs because this would be one of the very few areas
where they would have to pay something in relation to agriculture.  His delegation could see the
economic reasoning behind this consistent blockage, but on the other hand, this was clearly a
dangerous way of dealing with these issues, and it would not help Members to prepare the ground forany decision irrespective of its content on agriculture.  His delegation wished to emphasize that it was
not ready to take a decision on any agricultural is sue without the issue of GIs being taken up and
given a discussion forum where action could possi bly be agreed upon.  Hungary requested those
delegations, which so far had not been willing to al low progress in this area, to lift their procedural
blockage and allow these discussions to go ahead, without prejudging the outcome, thereby allowingprogress in all areas without exception.
117. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that, after the exchange of views between
delegations during the week, his delegation had a better understanding of the difficult situation
Members were currently facing.  It seemed that unless the overall balance of interests among
Members from developed and developing economies, importing and exporting economies, as well asnewly-acceded Members, had been fully taken into account, it would indeed be hard to reach
consensus.TN/C/M/8
Page 23
118. His delegation believed it was time for Members to demonstrate greater flexibility in
accelerating work in order to reach an achievable and agreeable negotiating outcome before Cancún.
To ensure a successful Ministerial Conference, delegations should attempt to solve as many issues as
possible in Geneva, and only genuinely sensitive issues should be left for guidance from Ministers.
Chinese Taipei would continue to cooperate with the Chairman and all WTO Members in thismanner, as it had done by punctually submitting initial offers for the service negotiations.  Moreover,
on his return home, he would coordinate with all th e relevant agencies to develop more flexible and
creative proposals to help make greater progress in the next few months before Cancún.  He believed
all other senior officials would do the same, and by  doing so, they would ensure a successful Cancún
meeting.
119. The representative of Venezuela said future work would depend on four things.  Firstly,
political will, in particular from developed countries, without which Members would not be able to
move forward.  Second, Members should try to limit individual interpretations of the Doha mandates.
Third, S&D treatment should be made effective in each of the areas of negotiation.  In this regard,
greater impetus should be given to resolving outstanding implementation issues, and the issue of
Public Health, where the mandate had not been complied with.  This issue was not part of the single
undertaking, and a solution could not be conditional on the rest of the negotiations.  Fourth, flexibilityhad to be visible in the negotiations.  Developing countries could not be the only ones to show
flexibility, given their economic conditions.  These were the requisite basis to enable Members to
continue future work, consultations and negotiations.  Venezuela was prepared to continue to
participate in such work in a constructive and transparent manner.
120. The representative of Bulgaria said he agreed with Colombia and Argentina that Members
needed a good diagnosis before deciding on the re medy.  Unfortunately, he could not agree with
Argentina's diagnosis that the reason Members found themselves in the present situation, specifically
in agriculture, was that some of them did not accept the draft modalities produced as the basis for
further negotiations.  Bulgaria believed that this draft was not part of the solution, but rather part of
the problem.  The TNC Chairman and others had often said that Members had to enter into a phase ofpositive linkages, and he agreed with that.  However, the paradigm for a positive linkage in the
multilateral trading system for half a century seemed to have been that one agreed to undertake a
concession if one obtained some other concession.  In other words, negotiators asked for something
while offering something.  The concept of balance was at the very root of the multilateral trading
system and its negotiations.  If one wanted to build positive linkages, this could not be based only on
what one wanted without offering something in re turn.  It could not be based on ambitions and
wishful ideas and expectations.  It would be better  to build on what one was willing to give and not
what one wanted to receive.  From such positive linkages, one could then build something which
approached the ambitions of each side.
121. Bulgaria continued to reject the concept that these negotiations could be built on anything
other than the concept of balance.  In this respect, his delegation strongly supported the statement by
Japan.  Each participant had to evaluate balance for itself, and the concept of overall balance could notbe other than the sum of such balances for each participant.  There was no such thing as an overall
balance independent from the balance for each participant.  Of course, balance had to be sought
within the framework of the single undertaking, but there also had to be a balance within each area of
the negotiations.  Those who had been making this argument for agriculture were not prepared to
make contributions in areas for which the deadlines had already expired, and this was not acceptableto Bulgaria.  His delegation wished to reiterate that the sequencing of deadlines was part of the
delicate balance achieved in Doha and which had made agreement possible on certain issues.  His
delegation would continue to look at further work from that perspective.
122. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the statements.
123. In closing the meeting, the Chairman said the next meeting of the TNC would take place on
8-9 May 2003.TN/C/M/8
Page 24
ANNEX
Statements made by participants at the informal session of the TNC
held on 2 April 2003
At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the informal session of
the TNC, held on 2 April 2003, are reproduced below as part of the minutes of the formal meeting
held on 4 April.  At the informal session, delegations were responding to a number of questions which
the Chairman had set out with the aim of helping to focus the discussion2 and to the statement3 he
made in opening the session.
_______________
Statement by Romania
I wish to join those congratulating you for the idea of convening this meeting, with an aim to
find ways and means in order to identify an outcome to the present situation of the negotiations.  In
order to allow as many Members as possible to express their points of view I shall turn to the
questions received from you, respecting their order.  For the first question, Mr. Chairman:
What more would your delegation need from negotiating partners in other areas of the
negotiations to be able to move further in sensitive areas?
We have in front of us the Doha mandate.  First of all, it would be more fruitful if this
mandate is not questioned and that all WTO Members base their approach on the fact that
negotiations should aim at respecting the letter and sense of this mandate.  Trying to extend the goals
from industrial goods to agricultural ones (i.e. eliminating tariff peaks, harmonizing tariffs) is not
supporting the way of negotiations.
Secondly, in the area of one of the most sensitive field, that of agriculture, the level of
ambitions of certain important exporter Members should be mixed with pragmatism and realism.Pragmatism, in the sense that all WO Members must be aboard these negotiations and that they will
be able to enforce the commitments assumed.
Realism, in the sense that refusing to recogn ize that there are many agricultural policies and
agricultural developments, and that these differences exist, is also undermining the entire negotiatingprocess.  We all know that agriculture represents on e of the oldest occupations, and its evolution is not
only linked to development strategies but also determined by factors as:  the size of the arable land,
the quality of the soil, climate, tradition of labouring the land and consumption habits.  In total
conformity with the Doha Mandate we are asked to reach the objective of further liberalizing trade in
agricultural products, keeping in mind market oriented rules as well as balances for the entire process,with a view to ensuring all participants to thes e negotiations enough flexibilities to cover their
development goals.
                                                     
2  What more would your delegation need from negotiating partners in other areas of the negotiations to
be able to move further in sensitive areas?
    Where can your delegation show additional flexibility in the context of achieving an overall balance
in the negotiations?
    What areas of the negotiations do you see as n eeding more emphasis or attention in preparation for
Cancún?  Within these areas, what issues do you see as priorities for future work?
3  Circulated in Job(03)/66.TN/C/M/8
Page 25
In this respect, although we highly appreciate the work done by the Chairman of the Special
Session on Agriculture, we did not find the mix of ambitions and realism and pragmatism.  Presenting
a draft for Modalities, based only on the position of the demandeurs, export oriented agricultures,
seeking for new markets and opportunities of export and neglecting the right to continue agricultural
policies (in many cases started after the Uruguay Round) seems to us not to be the best approach forsuch a sensitive matter.  Not accepting to take aboard in a serious manner the non trade concerns
related to agriculture is not only refusing to accept that other Members might have specific concerns
but to neglect too the environmental side of agriculture.
So, we would say that flexibility from all sides is needed, and that this flexibility has to fully
observe the Doha Mandate.
Your second question is even more difficult Mr. Chairman.  It is really very difficult at this
moment to identify the areas where flexibility can be shown.  We have a draft of Modalities in
agriculture which is not satisfactory and considered inbalanced and totally unacceptable for over 75
Members, here including all European countries.  We have various proposals on industrial products,
but the process of getting them closer has not yet begun.  Here again, ambitions are very high, whilethe need for certain countries to follow their development strategies is not enough taken care of.
For my country it would seem appropriate to accelerate the process of negotiations in Geneva
and not to wait for Cancún for a more flexible m ood.  Leaving up to Cancún matters unsolved within
the time-frame established in Doha would seem as trying to change the essence of the MinisterialConference, namely a mid-term review.  And this at a crucial conjuncture, when some positive signs
are to be seen in connection with the force and credibility of the multilateral system and organizations.
As for the third question.  Having in mind the political significance of the Cancún Ministerial, we
would suggest that there is a need to intense negotiations in the following areas:  TRIPS & Public
Health where a multilateral solution is to be agreed; agriculture, where acceptable Modalities are to beagreed if possible before Cancún.  More consultations, inclusiveness in the real sense of the word,
i.e. participation of the interested WTO Members and listening to their voice, avoiding to promote or
to push only certain positions; continuing your process of assessing the ways to move forward the
Implementation Issues.  Transparency, inclusiveness, real participation of all interested Members, the
right scheduling of the meetings, implication of the Director-General and of the DDGs in dedicated
consultations, might be the way to go forward.
We tried to answer to your questions and these questions are very similar to those we are
asking our representatives in Geneva.  Romania is committed to the Doha Development Agenda and
will do its best in order to fully participate in the negotiating process.  We fully support your efforts,
Mr. Director-General, in your position as Chairman of the TNC to give more impetus to the process of
making positions closer.  We are determined not only to take into consideration the developmentneeds of our country, a developing country, passing through a difficult process of transformation, but
to have also understanding and flexibilities for the needs of other WTO Members, mainly when
following development targets.TN/C/M/8
Page 26
Statement by Morocco on behalf of the African Group
I should like first of all to thank you on behalf of the African Group for your initiative in
making the present meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee a high-level session and therebycreating an opportunity, at this crucial time, to engage in an interactive debate on the negotiations
conducted since Doha with senior officials in the capitals.
My statement will be a short one and will be confined to the message that the African Group
would like to convey to all Members, while endeavouring to respond to your questions.
The day before yesterday the Chairman of the Committee on Negotiations on Agriculture
took stock of the work in which members have engaged since the first phase starting in 2000 and for
which the Fourth Ministerial Conference issued a mandate with a high degree of ambition.
With great disappointment, the Members of the African Group have been concerned and
frustrated to find that the fourth deadline in the Doha agenda has not been respected, after thedeadlines that should normally lead to the adoption of decisions on the issues of implementation,
TRIPS and public health and special and differential treatment.  The thorny question now is how to go
to Cancún with concrete results, in the knowledge that the grandiose ambition evinced by our
Ministers in Doha has given way to a climate of suspicion and distrust.
In adopting the Doha programme, our countries were full of good will in taking an active part
in carrying out this mandate focused on development and we really expected to arrive at results that
would logically remedy the imperfections and injustices of the past.  Our expectations were so great
even though we were gasping from the exhaustion caused by intense short-term liberalization efforts.
Our delegations have shown a great deal of energy and good faith throughout these intensive
negotiations on several fronts, in spite of our limited human and material resources, so that the
question today is finding out what we still have to do in the five-month run-up to Cancún.  The
African Group raises this question with legitimate concern, for the work in the three main areas
deemed to respond to their expectations has proved unproductive.
We consider that results regarding implementation of the Doha Declaration in regard to
TRIPS and public health are needed in order to restore confidence and make for progress at Cancún,
and I wish to reiterate the position already expressed in this connection by the African Group on anumber of occasions, namely, its concern for a durable multilateral solution.  We still believe that a
solution is possible.
As for Special and Differential Treatment, I shall not repeat the position already set out at the
TNC's last session, as there has been no result other than the poor record in the Committee on Trade
and Development.  However, our Group looks forward with interest and optimism to the proposals the
Chairman of the General Council, our friend Carlos Pérez del Castillo, will soon be submitting with
an innovative approach capable of breaking the deadlock on this point.  In this regard, we hope thatthe welcome given to this approach will be in k eeping with the importance of the matter and with the
expectations we all have.
The African Group considers that agriculture is the core of all development, especially on the
African continent, where the majority of the popu lation, a rural population, is confronted much more
than anywhere else with problems of food security and poverty.  The negotiations conducted so far by
our friend Harbinson, whom we wish to thank for his endeavours throughout this process, have not
produced any results.
The African Group has always refused, in discussing the various stock-taking exercises in the
negotiations thus far in the TNG, to make a negativ e linkage between one particular field or anotherTN/C/M/8
Page 27
and considers at the present stage that failure in agriculture would have an adverse impact on other
negotiating fields such as rules, market access for non-agricultural products, services and still other
Singapore topics.  Failure in agriculture would, in  our opinion, mean abandoning the main component
that made Doha an agenda for development and formed the grounds for our action and our
determination to date.
The work programme for the few months before Cancún promises to be tough and intensive
and each of us should be aware of the challenges for this Conference, where we shall have to assume
collective responsibility in the event of failure.  The task will not be an easy one, but the African
Group stands ready and is confident of a successful Conference, provided each and every one displays
the political will.  To this end, the African Group is open to any initiative whereby we can reach a
balanced and satisfactory compromise for all Members.  Success at Cancún is a priority goal for ourGroup, which solemnly reaffirms here its determination to devote to it the requisite political will and
political effort and pursue its approach with the flexibility that has always been the mark of its
positions since the beginning of the Doha negotiating round.  The African Group will be a partner for
success at Cancún and not, Heaven forbid, for failure.TN/C/M/8
Page 28
Statement by India
My delegation would like to thank you for convening the current meeting of the TNC at the
level of capital-based officials.  It is a timely initiative, which gives an opportunity for capital-basedofficials to get the flavour of negotiations in Geneva and facilitates contacts between them.  We intend
making full use of this opportunity.
At the outset, I would like to thank you for your comprehensive overview of the state of
negotiations on the Doha Work Programme.  On the last occasion that I attended a meeting of the
TNC, which was in February this year, most delegations complained about lack of balance in
progress.  The failure to meet the deadline in the agriculture negotiations may mean that there is some
balance in the imbalance.  Thus, we have been cons istent so far in not meeting any of the deadlines.
This, however, does not discourage my delegation.  When negotiations are being held on a wide range
of issues, such progress or the lack of it, is inevitable in the early stages.  It is also a fact that every
delegation that we have had contacts with is seriously committed to progress in negotiations.  This
augurs well for an effective and productive meeting in Cancún.
For many developing countries, what is most di sturbing is lack of meaningful progress on any
of the development related issues, which includes implementation issues, S&D, TRIPS & Public
Health, and internal transparency.  At Doha, we were assured that the focus of the Doha Work
Programme would be development.  In the progress so far, this assurance seems to have been lost
sight of.  We are deeply disturbed to hear statements like S&D and implementation issues are being
used as tactical ploys or are insubstantial.  One delegation even described it as an ideological issue.
Without going into the merits of such an observation, my delegation would like to recall that this so-
called "ideological issue" was settled in Doha when Ministers decided to call the Doha Work
Programme as the Doha Development Agenda.  Th e importance of S&D and Implementation issues –
and the need for effective solution to these issues – have been recognized by Ministers in paragraph
12 and 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and form an inalienable component of the overall
package agreed at Doha.  We cannot, therefore, understand how our proposals can now be termed as
tactical or ideological or insubstantial.  If indeed they are insubstantial, as is being said by some, we
would only request such delegations to come forward and accept our insubstantial proposals.  On
whether it is substantive or not, I would appeal to all delegations to leave it to the concerned
developing countries to judge for themselves.  We look forward at all the issues as a package and wewould not be satisfied with procedural ways of dealing with these issues.  We look forward to
meaningful and substantial results in these areas befo re Cancún as also to the unresolved issue of low
or insufficient manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector, a great human problem affecting
millions of people in the poorest parts of the world, on which we have to find a multilaterally agreed
solution.
We are aware that you are in the process of taking a new initiative on implementation issues.
On S&D, the CTD Special Session has sought a clarification from the General Council, without which
progress would not be possible on th e S&D proposals.  We know also that the Chairman of the
General Council has given serious thought to this and is endeavouring to find a meaningful solution.We look forward to early progress on these issues.  We appeal to all delegations to engage
constructively and in a spirit of cooperation, in the process being initiated by you and the Chairman of
the General Council.  For many developing countries, success at Cancún is predicated upon successful
resolution of these key developmental issues.
In the negotiations on agriculture, we have not been able to finalize the modalities by end-
March due to the serious divergence of views among members on the levels of ambition.  There is, as
yet, no sign of bridging this broad divide.  For my delegation, we attach the highest priority to S&D
provisions.  We look forward to early discussions on such crucial concepts as SP & SSM; satisfactory
resolution of these issues will for us be a major component of the results of negotiations onagriculture.  The focus in the agriculture negotiations has, over the last few months, been primarily onTN/C/M/8
Page 29
market access.  Given the highly distorted nature of the global market for agricultural products, it is
essential that we address the root cause of such distortions, namely, domestic support and export
subsidies, simultaneously and effectively.  Without substantial commitments for reduction in domestic
support, and all forms of export subsidies, it is meaningless to talk of liberalization of the agriculture
sector.  We look forward to engage constructively in further work on the proposals put forward by theChairman of the Committee on Agriculture Special Session.
On non-agricultural market access, we have had substantive and comprehensive discussions.
The Doha mandate has specified that the aim of negotiations in this area is to reduce or as appropriate
eliminate tariffs, including the reduction or elimin ation of tariff peaks, high tariffs, and tariff
escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers, in particular on products of export interest to developing
countries.  Further, the negotiations have to take fully into account the special needs and interests ofdeveloping and least-developed country participants, including through less than full reciprocity in
reduction commitments.  We have put forward a proposal which is fully in line with the mandate
given by the Ministers at Doha and look forward to  discussing the same in the next meeting of the
Negotiating Group on Market Access.  We are keenly looking forward to engaging constructively in
the further discussions in the Group and to the draft suggestions from the Chairman of the Group.  ForIndia, and for many other developing countries, we expect an outcome that fully factors in the
financial and developmental needs of developing countries, the concept of less than full reciprocity
and emphasis on market access for products of export interest to developing and least developed
countries.  We are working closely with other developing and least developed countries in this area
and we are looking forward to the Chairman's pr oposals, which, we are sure, will put development at
centre stage as was envisioned by the Ministers at Doha.
Mr. Chairman, you have posed some very pertinent questions to all the delegations.  The
answers to the first two questions are fairly evident in the early part of my statement.  We look
forward to early and substantial progress on all development-related issues.  In the discussions onthese issues, we have already shown flexibility in the interest of achieving progress.  However, this
has not met with a matching response with some delegations questioning even the meaning of the
mandate.  Many developing countries have shown maximum flexibility in the belief that the focus
would be clearly and unambiguously on development.  It was in a spirit of give and take and mutual
accommodation that the Doha Work Programme was agreed to by many delegations.  We are deeply
disturbed by what we perceive to be an attempt to treat developmental issues as peripheral and
insubstantial.
Mr. Chairman, the Ministers had given us three years in which to complete the work on the
Doha Work Programme.  We are surprised and concerned at statements being made on whether the
target date of 1 January 2005 is realistic.  The Ministers, no doubt, took into account the volume of
work involved when they agreed upon the target date for completion of negotiations.  To concludenegotiations by the target date, what is required is meaningful and constructive negotiations.  If the
duration of negotiations is sought to be extended, we should be aware that other external factors could
come in the way and that other issues may be raised  that could further complicate the process.  It is
necessary for all of us to engage constructively so as to meet the target given to us by the Ministers at
Doha.TN/C/M/8
Page 30
Statement by Norway
Let me start by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for your initiative to conduct this meeting of the
TNC at senior capital-based official level, giving  us the opportunity to participate actively in the
overall discussion of the conduct of the ne gotiations of the Doha Development Agenda.   Also, I
would like to thank you for the thought-provoking introduction, as well as the questions you have
posed, in order to structure our discussion.
At this stage of the negotiations, with numerous  unresolved conflicts and emerging challenges
before us and the Cancún Ministerial rapidly approaching, it is important to recall and reconfirm what
we agreed upon in Doha.  The Doha Ministerial Conference was a success because we managed tobalance the interests of Members.  We hammered out a mandate for the negotiations with a
development focus, and with a level of ambition that everybody could agree upon.  Success in the
negotiations will depend on our ability and willingness to stick to the mandate.  Attempts to add to or
subtract from the mandate, or change its balance, could therefore easily derail the process.
We have been negotiating for a little more than a year.  In this short period we have already
missed four deadlines.  The reasons vary.  For some issues there has simply been a lack of political
will in some quarters to reach solutions.  For other issues the time limits have been overly optimistic
in the light of the complexity of the problems.
A common denominator for three of them – namely S&D, implementation and TRIPS and
public health, is that they had been discussed before Doha.  The deadlines from the ministers were not
interim targets, but the final dates for resolution of th ese issues.  In this way they were not part of the
core areas of trade liberalisation.  Implementation issues including S&D, have been on our agenda
since the Geneva ministerial conference in 1998.  TRIPS and public health emerged from the need tomake it clear that the TRIPS Agreement was not an obstacle to deal with serious health situations in
developing countries.
The first deadline we missed was on S&D.  Obviously a deadline by the end of July last year
was unrealistic, given the complexity of the issues at hand.  We will certainly work with the Chairman
of the General Council to find a way forward.  On  implementation, the political will to find solutions
was missing.  Also we failed to meet the third deadline – to find a solution to the problems of WTOMembers with insufficient manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector to make effective
use of import licensing under the TRIPS Agreement – by the end of 2002.  I am, however, optimistic
that time is working in favour of a viable solution.  We cannot seriously go into a ministerial
conference with this issue being unresolved.
The fourth deadline we have missed concerning the modalities for the negotiations in
agriculture is thus in a different category.  Agriculture is – together with services, market access for
non-agricultural products and antidumping – one of the core areas of the Doha Round.  Progress in all
these areas is closely interlinked, not only intellectu ally, but also formally through the concept of the
single undertaking.
One main reason for the situation we face in agriculture, in my view, is the huge disparity in
the level of ambition as well as preferred approaches among Members.  The Chairman for the special
session has led the negotiations in an admirable way, but unfortunately we have all put him in an
impossible situation in asking him to try to identify  the basis for a compromise in a situation where no
real negotiations have taken place.  Expectations on all sides need to be trimmed in order to fit the
realities of the real world.  All parties will of course have to accept substantial changes, but the
mandate cannot be interpreted to warrant policies that would eradicate the entire agricultural sector in
some parts of the world.TN/C/M/8
Page 31
In retrospect, I also believe it was much too optimistic, and with hindsight a grave error, to
aim for agreement on the main aspects of the agricultural negotiations in March 2003.  The process of
establishing modalities for market access for non-agricultural products is still at an early stage.  In
services we have met the deadline for submitting initial offers.  On “Rules” we are in the process of
moving from issue identification to the development of more detailed proposals as you yourselfunderlined, Mr. Chairman.  However, at this time we are nowhere near the same stage on substance in
these other core negotiations.  You just cannot expect to pocket the main result in the most important
negotiating area in the form of an ”early harvest,” and expect demandeurs in other areas to cross their
fingers and hope for the best.  This development therefore has been quite predictable for some time.
Where do we go from here?
The only way forward in my opinion is to continue serious work in all areas, including
services, market access for non-agricultural products and antidumping, as well as the issues of
particular importance to developing country members.  This committee will have an important role of
overseeing the progress in all these areas.  If some areas fall behind or progress stops, alarm lights
have to start flashing, and we would expect you to make your authority felt.
The immediate problem in front of us is agriculture.  Important technical work can and must
be continued without loosing any time.  As far as  the main elements in the future regime for
agriculture is concerned, I see no other alternative but to adopt a bottom-up approach which I think
most successes in this organisation has been built on.  In other words, the way forward should be toapply an incremental approach in order to start building a consensus on the modalities.  I am reluctant
to mention the question of deadlines in this respect, we all know we have a ministerial conference in
September.  Perhaps we should expect ministers to ask us to go on working, rather than expecting
them to solve the problems for us?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether this was the answer to all your questions.
But I hope some of my thoughts would be helpful in your further considerations on how to bring these
important negotiations forward to a successf ul end in about a year and a half from now!TN/C/M/8
Page 32
Statement by the European Communities
I would like to start by addressing the key issue of what do we need to do in order to ensure
that Cancún, and the Round, is a success?  In trying to answer these questions I will as far as possiblealso respond to the points that the DG has invited us to address.
Where are we? This is the beginning of the real negotiations, not the end.  The chips are
largely on the table.  We are not "deadlocked" simply because our respective proposals or positions
differ in their degree of ambition.  If that was the definition of deadlock, all issues on the agenda are
similarly affected.  Anything else would be surprising only 18 months since Doha.
We should be guided by a few basic principles, some of which are included in the DDA itself.
Firstly, the principle of the single undertaking.  Secondly, within that single undertaking, the over all
outcome of the negotiations has to be sufficiently positive for ALL Members to be satisfied.  This
must not become a zero sum game with one or a few Members scooping-up all the chips in one or the
other sector.  It should not, for example, be about developed countries reinforcing their comfortablelead at the expense of developing countries, but it should be a process through which all of us derive
benefits.
Concerns have been voiced about the less than fully satisfactory progress of the negotiations.
The Community shares those concerns.  There is a collective responsibility for uneven progress.There has even been no progress at all on some parts of the built-in agenda.  The EU also suffers from
that on some issues.  Some deadlines have passed but we should perhaps ask ourselves whether we
were realistic at Doha in setting up targets which for some sectors would imply that the negotiations
would largely be over by yesterday.  It is ther efore important to answer Dr. Supachai's questions,
since the answers to them will help us keep the Round on track.
Here are some responses:Where can the Members in general, and in this case the EU in particular, show additional
flexibility?
On agriculture, Members have staked out their hope for territory.  Some are asking for total
victory, others are proposing nothing, some are in between.  On the crucial question of market access,
the EC has proposed that one employ the UR tariff reduction formula [36 % average cut, minimum 15
%].  Although we have considerable export interests, both on developed and developing country
markets, we are willing to envisage a significant degree of flexibility of the application of such a
formula to developing countries in general and to the more vulnerable in particular.  We are alsoproposing the Uruguay Round approach for domestic subsidies, and we are also ready to foresee
flexible special and differential treatment for developing countries in this respect.  This is essential.
Recent studies suggest that least developed countries will experience an important reduction in their
agricultural production and a very high and indeed disruptive increase in imports if the more extreme
proposals on the table are followed.  These proposals would also result in a significant increase in
world market prices, to the severe disadvantage of many developing countries, the majority of which
are net food importers.  To suggest that the negotiations on agriculture pit developed against
developing countries is a travesty of the truth, and so is the suggestion that "development" in this
sector is synonymous with blind extreme market opening, which would lead to a rural exodus of a
proportions never witnessed in the past.  So, let us move away from facile superficial slogans andcarefully study and exchange our studies on the impact of our respective proposals.  The Members
also need to find a solution to the plight of those developing countries which would lose out
significantly because of the erosion of their preferential margin of access, in particular the ACP
countries.TN/C/M/8
Page 33
While we are on the subject of flexibility in the area of agriculture, it would also be a very
positive signal to these negotiations if those Members which have recently decided to increase their
agricultural subsidies by around as much as we last year decided to reduce ours, would now, as a
pledge of their real intentions, here and now commit to undo that decision.
Indian reference to strategic products (SP): Maybe one way, but the drawback is that
Members would need to negotiate on what is a strategic product-to them: The UR approach on tariffs
that we propose would leave space for domestic policy making on this crucial issue.
On Non Agricultural Market Access, we will essentially be ready to demonstrate the same
kind of flexibility.  We proposed a precise, ambitious tariff compression formula as late as the day
before yesterday.  We are, however, ready to be flexib le in the application of this formula so as not to
undermine legitimate "infant industry" type concerns in developing countries.
On the Singapore issues, we are willing to en visage, and this completely contrary to the
modalities for agriculture and industrials, that the modalities to be adopted at Cancún largely be of an
organisational character, a basic framework only to guide the negotiators, without prejudging theoutcome of the negotiations on substance.
On anti-dumping, here we are willing to show flexibility.  We recognise the desire of the
friends of anti-dumping to curtail the abusive recourse to such measures.  We recognise that the
political realities in the United States make root and branch reform difficult for them.  We knowwhere our fundamental interests are but here too are we willing to envisage a compromise.
This is, of course, a non-exhaustive list.The other two questions posed by the Director General deal with similar aspects of the same
issue: where are the main lacunae, what should the priorities be for further work.
There are four areas where little if any progress has been made, TRIPS/Health, SDT and
implementation, geographical indications, trade and the environment.  SDT has to be an underlying
theme of the DDA as a whole, but precious little progress has been made.  That needs urgently to be
rectified.  On geographical indications, no progress at all has been registered, with some key Members
refusing to engage in any meaningful discussions - let alone negotiations.  This is difficult tocomprehend, even in terms of classical negotiating tac tics.  If you know that a given issue is crucial to
another Member, is it wise simply to reject an issue written into the DDA, and part of the single
undertaking, especially when there is an economic connection between such an issue and your own
top or exclusive priority such as agriculture?  We can all play at such games.  Sometimes the result is
cumulative failure.  In all cases, it is a waste of time.  On trade and the environment at least a dialoguehas started, but progress on substance, if any, has been millimetric.
Last, but certainly not least, although outside the Round as such, the absence of a successful
conclusion on access to medicines is a matter of deep concern, shared by the great majority of the
Members.
Back to the future.  We have passed from first to second gear, with a great amount of
crunching of the gear wheels, because some gears inside the box are turning faster than others, and
some not at all.  How do we now move into third, so that ministers at Cancún can successfully move
into fourth, i.e. cruising speed for the successful conclusion next year?  Mere wishful thinking and
rhetorical exhortations for "political will" will obviously not suffice.
We need to start a process that will get us into the right negotiating mode.  We believe that
the first thing to do is to reach a common understanding on what Ministers should be required to
achieve at Cancún.  On what issues do they have to  take decisions, and on what issues can they simply
take stock or provide further guidance? In some respects, this is laid down in the DDA, in others, weTN/C/M/8
Page 34
should be inspired by the present state of play.  And, we should base ourselves on the basic principles
of the single undertaking and aimed at positive outcomes for all.
Answering this question and working backwards from it would help us focus our work in
Geneva in the next few months.
In the EC's view, Ministers should focus on seven issues at Cancún.First, on agriculture, Ministers should confirm a comprehensive set of modalities and set a
date for the submission of schedules.  To get to this point means that between now and Cancún we
need to work very hard at the technical level in isolating and refining the issues for that ministerial
decision.  An important set of issues has emerged already in the ongoing negotiations.  We need to
push on to translate these issues into concrete negotiating parameters.
Let me return to an earlier theme: All of the proposals currently on the table of the agriculture
negotiations have given rise to substantial debate as regards their impact on developing countries both
from an offensive and defensive point of view.  Gi ven the importance attached to development in this
negotiating Round, it seems to us vitally necessary to address these developmental issues in respect of
all key areas, including in particular market access.  What are members' expectations as to their
improved access to developing country markets? - This is just one question that needs a response.
Conversely, it is essential to have a clear picture from developing countries about their own
sensitivities in this respect.
I would also like to underline another key aspect, namely that all issues including non trade
concerns - must be given weight in this process.  If they are not then the negotiation will not be
successful.  The DDA requires action on all the DDA and not just selections from it.
Second, Ministers should take a decision on non-agricultural market access with the same
type of objectives.  Cancún should confirm the outcome of negotiations over the coming weeks on a
formula approach that should then be applied in the subsequent phase.  As in agriculture, the decision
should also include clear indications as to how Mi nisters intend to apprehend SDT.  To get to this
point means that in the MA negotiating group we need to boil down the different formulae on the
table to a single one that, combined with special development modalities, covers everyone's priorities
and is consistent, obviously, with the other specific objectives of the Doha text (peaks, tariffescalation etc.).  Ministers should also agree on how to take non-tariff barriers forward.
Third, the DDA requires Ministers to take a decision on the modalities of the Singapore
Issues, as explicitly foreseen in the Doha Declaration.  We therefore need to begin developing these
modalities so that the decision in Cancún is rendered easier.  Neither on this, nor on other issuesshould there be any last minute surprises.  Most the ingredients are already well known to all of us.
We have proposed that modalities comprise: procedural guidance so that negotiations start
immediately after Cancún; SDT, which obviously should be addressed in the negotiations on all four
issues; and the scope of the negotiating agenda - i.e. what issues will be discussed, without prejudging
the outcome.  The Doha texts provide the basis for this.
Fourth, Ministers should take decisions on special and differential treatment and
implementation issues.  We all should encourage the Chairman of the General Council and the
Director General to put in place an informal process to make progress.  We hope that decisions on a
considerable number of SDT issues can be taken before or at Cancún: decisions with real value addedfor developing countries.  At and after Cancún we should begin negotiations on remaining issues and
on the cross cutting questions alike.  And we are prepared to develop a framework agreement or a set
of guiding principles for adoption at Cancún to ensure that SDT is given systematic attention once it is
moved into the negotiations.TN/C/M/8
Page 35
Finally, there are a number of important additional rule making areas that must be decided by
Ministers in Cancún.  We expect by Cancún a decision on geographical indications: both the
conclusion of negotiations on the register and a decision that will allow us to move to a negotiating
phase on extension.  The former is a part of the single undertaking and both are to us essential
ingredients of a successful Round.
On DSU, we hope that under the firm chairmanship of Péter Balás, an ambitious and balanced
result of the negotiations can be achieved by the May deadline.  If however, that proves impossible,
Ministers in Cancún should agree on the greatest possible number of outstanding issues and define a
mandate for further negotiations.
And last but certainly not least, we believe it is important that our Ministers decide at Cancún
the question of MEA observerships and possibly some other points on the environment agenda.
Chairman, this list of issues contains matters of importance to all and is intended to be
balanced.  As regards the other - often no less important subjects of the DDA - our judgement is that it
should suffice for Ministers to take stack of the work done and perhaps, in some cases, give additionalsteer.
There is no reason at all why these decisions cannot be taken at Cancún or the Round finish
according to schedule.  It is not a question of time or the alleged complexity of issues but of focus and
compromise.
As always, when at a loss for ideas on substance, minds turn to procedure and, worst of all, to
dates.  We have, for example, these past weeks heard - with a mixture of sense of irreality, amusement
and concern statements by some that the pursuit of the agriculture negotiations be postponed until the
EU has completed its on-going mid-term review of the CAP.  A sense of irreality because thiscompletely ignores the fact that there are a few other quite large countries out there which are
basically in the same situation as we are with respect to subsidies and market access, and who have
been increasing rather than decreasing those subs idies to an extraordinary extent, while we have
decided to do the opposite.  A classical example, if I have ever seen it, of (partly, to be fair) barking
up the wrong tree.
Amusement, because this would of course put us in the situation of having the EU Council
decide the outcome of these negotiations.  But also deep concern: if further progress on agriculture
were postponed until, say July, one would be surprised if much progress were .made on many other
issues.  The Membership would then have to sc ramble within an impossibly short time frame to
prepare for Cancún.  Whose interests would that serve?
Before arriving in Geneva a couple of days ago, we have also heard suggestions to the effect
that one should lower the level of ambitions, i.e., the usual phenomenon of making ambitions conform
to a pessimistic view of the world.  I have been  very pleased to hear the opposite confirmation by
numerous colleagues outside this room and hope to hear them confirm this today.  We are glad that
the Director General has been among the first to underline our collective intention to maintain thelevel of ambition our Ministers decided on in Doha.
During the next few months, the Director General, the General Council Chairman and the
chairs of the different groups should put their heads together, help us take difficult decisions, and help
us to keep that big picture in mind.  But they are all very seasoned negotiators.  For that reason too,though we have a challenging and no doubt difficult few months ahead, there is no reason to be
pessimistic or doubt our ability to deliver an ambitious, comprehensive result at Cancún.TN/C/M/8
Page 36
Statement by Colombia
Since the Doha negotiating round was launched, all Members of this Organization have
sought to facilitate and ensure that progress is made, in accordance with the wishes expressed in theDeclaration issued by Ministers.  The start of this round has been truly remarkable, when compared
with the pace and difficulties of the initial phases of previous negotiations.  This time we have
planned our work efficiently, allowing us to move smoothly from the organizational stage to the
discussion of substantive issues.  Also of particular note is the number of proposals and papers that
have been submitted by most countries in all the negotiating groups.  Moreover, the highly active
participation of developing countries has been unprecedented.  Accordingly, in taking stock of our
work over the past 15 months, we should single out the degree of commitment of all Members to thefuture of the multilateral trading system, which is undoubtedly the cornerstone of a sound world
economy in the future.
We have nonetheless begun to run into difficulties in complying with the agreements on
public health, special and differential treatment (SDT) and implementation issues within the deadlineset out in the Declaration.  These three areas, being very close to the interests of developing countries,
have left us with a sense of unease that is serious for the process.  In spite of this, we have continued
to work enthusiastically and in good faith in other ongoing negotiations.
This week we have failed to meet the specified deadline to agree upon the modalities for our
negotiations on agriculture.  This new failure is much more serious and has greater implications for
the negotiations as a whole, since we are well aware that the agriculture negotiations are the key issue
of this new Round.  Without any significant head way on agriculture, few would deem it possible to
conclude these negotiations successfully, as a balanced overall outcome for everybody would not be
reached.  Worse still, however, is the fact that failure to meet the deadline is due fundamentally to theinability of a few very important delegations to negotiate on the basis of the mandate on agriculture
provided by our Ministers at Doha, but this does not prevent them from being inordinately ambitious
in other areas of market access.  These delegations have made it clear that they are not flexible enough
to start negotiating on the basis of the text submitted by the Chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture and can only negotiate on the basis of their own proposals, which do not stick to the
Ministers' mandate.
In the circumstances, Mr Chairman, it is hardly difficult to answer your questions.  How can
we find positive synergies if we have not even managed to lay the foundations for adopting
negotiating modalities in the near future?  Developments to date, and the divergence between
positions at the negotiating table have forced us to seriously consider the likelihood of arriving in
Cancún without having defined those positions.  Naturally, this can be expected to have an untowardeffect on other issues to be negotiated, particularly the timetable for other aspects of market access,
industrial goods and services.  Without doubt, many member countries will become cautious and keep
their cards close to their chest until they see things clear up and the way is open for the negotiations
on agriculture.  Regrettably, this situation can generate negative synergies, a possibility already being
talked about in the main specialist media.
However, we want to contribute positively to the discussion today and give our view on what
might be the best way to prepare the ground for Cancún.  We think that a realistic scenario, albeit an
unfortunate one, is that we will arrive in Cancún without having met the other deadlines set out in the
Declaration for the rest of this first half of the year.  This does not mean that significant progress and arapprochement  of positions in the negotiations on agriculture and dispute settlement are
inconceivable, but in the present circumstances, the original deadlines are unlikely to be met.
Faced with this scenario, we must look for ways to keep the process alive and active, steering
away from a traumatic meeting at Cancún.  To do so we believe we must work on two areas.  Wemust first resolve, even if only in some aspects, the outstanding issues I have already mentioned,TN/C/M/8
Page 37
namely public health, special and differential treatment and implementation, although one of the
implementation issues, extending protection to geographical indications, is not one of those likely to
be resolved in the immediate future.  Progress in  these matters would revive the negotiating process
and would show world public opinion that WTO Members are honouring their commitments and
giving this Round the requisite development dimension.  However, we must be clear that this willonly revive the patient;  it will not solve his health problems.
In tandem with our work in the negotiating gr oups, it is vital to start preparing for the
Ministerial Conference in a way that is inclusive and transparent for all WTO Members, on the basis
of the realistic scenario emerging from the results of our work over the past few months.  This should
allow us to clearly define the nature and outcome we want for the Ministerial Conference in Cancún.
Naturally, we cannot expect our Ministers to solve in five days things that have not been possible inover a year and a half.  For that reason, Cancún must serve first and foremost to make an objective
assessment of our work to date, and clearly pinpoint the main obstacles to a rapprochement  on
sensitive issues.  Furthermore, we must encourage the main political and social actors in our
countries, clearly conveying the importance of attainin g positive results in this Round to reactivate the
world economy, regain levels of employment and facilitate the opening up of channels to acceleratedgrowth for developing countries, helping them to achieve their goal of reducing poverty and playing
an active role in the world economy.
Moreover, the declaration must include a roadmap for our future work and even, where
necessary, flexibly redefining some of the deadline s for agreements that have still not been reached.
If this means redefining the deadline for concluding the Round, then this is what should be done in
order to make the negotiations wholly credible and produce the desired results.
Mr Chairman, for the reasons we have explained, we think it highly unfeasible that, after
failing to respect the decisions made before Cancún, we will be able to comply with others madewhen we are there, such as the so-called Singapore issues or the register of wines and spirits.  To
respect the spirit of the agreements reached at Doha, we must continue to work constructively, with
forward vision and realism.  All Members must be flexible, but in order to be so, we must be clear
with one another, and all Members must be willing to respect the Doha mandate.  The cost of reaching
firm agreements may be high, but the price of failure will be much more devastating for the world.
That is why, Mr Chairman, Colombia reaffirms its desire to continue working constructively with you
and the other Members to achieve our common objective.TN/C/M/8
Page 38
Statement by the United States
Thank you, Mr. Director General, for convening this informal session of the TNC and for
providing comprehensive overview of the negotiations.
You have highlighted the work before us as we prepare for the Cancún Ministerial.
Preparation is not simply a matter of staging a succes sful event.  It is a matter of setting clearly the
substantive goals for the Cancún Ministerial that will enable us to complete the DDA with its high
level of ambition, its pervasive development orientation, and its overall balance of interests.  And to
complete it on time.
This is a critical contribution that the WTO can and should make to the current international
economic situation, in which trade expansion stimulated by previous rounds of trade liberalization is
not playing the same role in support of economic growth and development as it did in the past decade.
Simply identifying clear and ambitious goals is not sufficient.  We must then identify the
discrete tasks to perform in each of the areas of negotiation and carry out those tasks in a timely and
transparent manner.  The U.S. is strongly committed to this effort, with the aim of developing a
positive, balanced package of Ministerial guidance from Cancún that enables us to complete the
negotiations by 2005.  Not just a routine review of work to date.
The path to ultimate success necessarily faces twists/turns, ups/downs, which reflects the
reality of 145 countries dealing with a wide range of interests, a broad scope of issues, and great
diversity in our levels of development.  Realis m in negotiations means recognizing that fact and
finding solutions that allow us to meet the high level of ambition in Doha Declaration.  Realism does
not mean abandoning ambition.
It is disappointing that we have been unable to finish our work on agricultural modalities,
given that agriculture is at the heart of the DDA.  Certainly the most significant element in our
negotiations for development and poverty alleviation is the potential liberalization of world
agricultural trade.  The U.S. remains committed to achieving such reform – as specified by the high
level of ambition agreed at Doha, and as evident from our proposal of last July, a key feature of which
is not simply to reduce domestic support and export subsidies; but to eliminate export subsidies.
As we continue to press for agriculture modalities at this high level of ambition, we must
press forward - even intensify -our efforts in the other elements of our negotiating agenda, especially
the other elements of market access - services and non-agricultural market access (NAMA).
The U.S. and several other countries presented services offers on Monday.  We urge other
members, especially other developed countries, to present their offers as soon as possible.  As a
growing, majority proportion of our economies, (e.g., 54% of GDP in developing countries),
international trade in services offers important new opportunities for millions of people in developing
countries.
We have another significant opportunity to push negotiations forward and to make significant
contribution to development in the negotiations of NAMA.  The U.S. urges other delegations to work
together over the next two months in support of Ch airman Girard's efforts to develop modalities for
negotiation of NAMA.
Being in position by Cancún to negotiate on market access in the 3 areas of agriculture,
NAMA, and services (as well as the other 2 pillars in agriculture) should be the central focus of our
efforts in the coming months.  This would be the strongest form of creating the positive linkages
referred by DG Supachai.TN/C/M/8
Page 39
We need to maintain - even heighten - our work in the other areas of negotiations: rules,
including improved disciplines on the underlying unfair trade practices; DSU; S&D/implementation
reviews; modalities for each of the 4 Singapore issues; trade and environment, etc.
And we need to find a solution - in the form of a WTO agreement - to the issue of
TRIPS/access to medicine.  I'd like to assure members that the U.S. seeks to work with other countries
to obtain such a resolution before Cancún.  We seek other countries' assistance in creating the positive
atmosphere between the pharmaceutical companies and governments that will enable us to reach such
a solution.
Speaking generally, we need to create the environment in the overall negotiations that
stimulates all of us to intensify our efforts.  How best to intensify our efforts?  Start with marketaccess.  It's the core of the negotiations.
(1) Agriculture is recognized as the key to the Doha negotiations.  As such we cannot pause in
our efforts to develop modalities for agriculture consistent with the Doha Declaration.  All delegations
must participate and should not expect the world to hold its breath for them.  Nothing stimulates the
reluctant like the fear that they will be left behi nd in shaping the outcome.  We need to push ahead.
(2) NAMA:
- We need interaction among countries to understand in a more refined way the
sensitivities of others with our respective proposals and to help the Chairman narrow
the range of options before the delegations.
- This refinement should be done without resorting to adopting the lowest common
denominator.  We must keep our ambition high.
(3) Services: increased offers are the most immediate need.  If we create a critical mass of
countries that have made requests and offers and actually begin negotiations, that will stimulate others
to intensify their efforts.  And it will create growing stakes in the overall negotiations.
Even as we focus on the market access dimensions, however, we must work conscientiously
on the other important areas of the negotiations, including:
(1) develop modalities for:
• trade facilitation
• transparency in government procurement
• investment
• competition policy
(2) complete successfully the review of S&D and implementation, under the leadership
of GC Chair Perez del Castillo and DG Supachai, respectively.
(3) move negotiations forward in areas of rules and trade and environment, and
improvements and clarifications of the DSU.
(4) finally, we must not forget the critical importance of continuing technical assistance
for developing countries.  The Doha Declaration is very clear on this point.  I assure you that
the U.S. remains active in its support for these ac tivities.  I am pleased to inform you that the
U.S. is announcing today a contribution of $1 million to the WTO Global Trust Fund in
support of this year's WTO program of technical assistance.TN/C/M/8
Page 40
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this meeting.  I want to assure you and our
colleagues that the U.S. is committed to work with you and the membership to bring these
negotiations to a successful conclusion in the time frame agreed to at Doha. "Successful" being
defined as having a high level of achievement and providing a powerful impulse for economic growth
and development.TN/C/M/8
Page 41
Statement by Chinese Taipei
First of all, I’d like to state that Chinese Taipei clearly shares your concern that we urgently
need momentum, discipline and the strong willingness if we are to achieve substantial progress in thisround of negotiations.
We have now missed several key deadlines without reaching any conclusions.  The delays we
are encountering threaten to become a “traffic jam.”  In many of the areas of this negotiation, such as
market access for agricultural and non-agricultural products, we have even yet to engage in any real
negotiations and thus we have long since lost the luxury of time.  Since we cannot afford any further
loss of credibility by missing another deadline without a result, I can not agree with you more that anurgent need is upon us: we must narrow down our di fferences by taking positive steps with the aim of
ensuring success at the upcoming Cancún Ministerial Conference.
Bearing with this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I wish  to point out that the aim of the WTO has
never been the immediate elimination of tariffs and non-tariff measures.  On the contrary, its aim hasbeen to ensure the progressive opening of markets while permitting necessary safeguards.  With this
in mind, adopting too ambitious and unrealistic positions in the negotiations has often been counter-
productive, which in turn, has negatively influenced the world’s impression of and faith in the WTO
and interfered with progress in the Doha negotiations overall.  We think it is preferable to be
pragmatic, and we therefore suggest Members to push for liberalization by adopting incrementalapproaches to liberalization so that we can move forward.  Let me now highlight some of our points
of views on particular negotiating subjects.
First, regarding agriculture negotiations, the agriculture negotiations are now facing a
stalemate.  Although we are thankful to the chairman, Mr. Harbinson, who has devoted his best effortsto draft two versions of possible modalities for these negotiations, we do not see the slightest chance
of obtaining consensus any time soon.  An utter lack of progress in the agriculture negotiation would
undermine the objectives of agriculture exporting countries, and in particular, the developing
countries.  It would also defeat the actions by those importing countries that are willing to push for
reform and are longing for positive results from these negotiations.  At this point I shall refrain from
repeating my Government’s position on the agricultural negotiation; however, please note, Mr.
Chairman, that we stand as one of the Members who actively support progressive agricultureliberalization, at least as far as non-trade matters are concerned.  In order to push these negotiations
ahead, delegations should proceed in a more realistic manner.
Turning to negotiations on market access of non-agricultural products, we are taking a
cautious yet optimistic stance.  We appreciate some Members’ ambitious moves to table proposalsthat, in effect, would liberalize trade for all non-agricultural products.  Yet, here again, I would like to
remind Members that we will be judged by our ultimate success.  We believe that if all of us adopt a
more pragmatic approach, we will have a much better chance of securing a consensus on modalities
before the May deadline.
On the services negotiations, I am pleased to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that we submitted
our initial offers before the end of March.  One cannot help but note that most of the other Members
did not table their offers by this deadline.  On this note, I would like to reiterate my call on
delegations to honour the deadlines Ministers establis hed in Doha.  Although mo st of us would agree
that deadlines sometimes feel like straitjackets, we have to admit that they can serve as benchmarks ofprogress and provide much needed momentum.  For our part, we intend to carry out our work
according to the timelines we committed ourselves to in Doha.  In fact, we believe that many
developing countries enjoy comparative advantages and remain very competitive in the trade of
services, including in areas such as human resources training, tourism, business services, distribution,
and maritime services, just to name a few.  I would like to take this opportunity to encourageTN/C/M/8
Page 42
Members to engage in substantive liberalization of their services sectors, particularly as a means to
spur economic development.
The vital next phase of our work is to focus on narrowing down our differences.  This is to
say, we must make a paradigm shift and not think about what other Members can and should concede,but instead concentrate on what each of us as Members is prepared to concede.
Finally, we would like also to emphasize the very central impact of transparency on the
process of consensus building as our India Colle ague has mentioned a moment ago.  To improve
capacity building for these negotiations, and to ensure that every Member has full background
knowledge of developments in the negotiations, we strongly believe that all Members are entitled to
participate in each and every formal and informal meeting related to the Doha negotiations, whetherheld by the WTO or other international organizations .  To be fully informed is vital to guarantee
meaningful participation of Members in all phases of the negotiations.  Transparency must be the
lifeblood of this negotiating process, as it is nearly impossible to reach substantial consensus without
transparency.  We feel the need to raise this important issue at the Cancún Ministerial Meeting and to
call on Members to acknowledge how significant this principle is for them as well.TN/C/M/8
Page 43
Statement by Brazil
The supervision of the Doha by the TNC negotiations implies “critical watching and
directing”.  And we have indeed reason to be critical about what we have been watching.  We havejust missed the fourth deadline in a row.
Brazil is unequivocally committed to the success of the Doha Round within the level of
ambition agreed to in the mandate and within the established timeframe.  That is why we do not take
the missed deadlines lightly.
It is worth taking a step back and considering why Ministers decided to include a number of
deadlines in our mandate for this Round.  It is, after all, a single undertaking.  Ministers could have
concentrated on the substance and let negotiations in each area run their course.  But they didn't.  The
deadlines and the results that should have been achieved were intended as part of the mandate and of
the level of ambition we set for ourselves in Doha.
It is not a coincidence that the first deadlines involved issues dear to developing countries.
This would be the first development round.  The deadlines were meant to test that claim.
The deadlines, including the one on agricultural modalities, were conceived as confidence-
building measures.  The recurrent sales pitch in the lead-up to Doha was that only comprehensive
negotiations could provide the trade-offs required fo r meaningful reform of agriculture in developed
countries.  An early decision on modalities was meant to test that claim.
The tests failed: the deadlines were missed.  How do we deal with this?  We need to restore
confidence.  We need to restore trust.  We need to restore a shared sense of purpose.
This is a responsibility that falls upon all Members.  But this is not to imply that all Members
are equally responsible.
You asked us in what areas we need more flexibility, and in what areas we should concentrate
our work in the preparation for Cancún.  To answer  those questions, we must look at what has been
happening lately.  We have built a backlog of unresolved issues, in the form of the missed deadlines.It is essential that we address this backlog before Cancún in order to set the stage for the Ministerial.
It is high time that we find a solution to the TR IPS and Public Health issue.  We also need an
efficient working procedure for dealing with Impl ementation.  All outstanding implementation issues
are at the TNC level now; we deem it essential that the TNC live up to its responsibility.  For our part,we remain committed to our proposals on TRIMs and on TRIPS and the CBD and we are prepared to
discuss in good faith all other proposals.  As in other areas, there is technical work to be done.
Technical work alone, however, is no substitute for the change in attitude that is required.
On S&D, we believe that an effort could be made to engage in concrete negotiations to work
out a package solution that is acceptable to all.  We believe that the Chairman of the General Council
is well placed to undertake that effort.
In market access for non-agricultural goods, in contrast to agriculture, negotiations have been
advancing at a steady pace.  Any additional progress will depend on full respect of the Doha mandate,which very explicitly calls for less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments for both developing
countries and LDCs.  In any case, we stand to be convinced that, not having agreed on modalities for
the agricultural negotiations, there would be any merit in retaining the schedule for an agreement on
modalities for market access for non-agricultural goods.TN/C/M/8
Page 44
On services, I would like to inform you that Brazil will be presenting its initial offer soon.
We see it as the start of a process, whose outcome will also depend closely on progress achieved in
other areas of the negotiations.
As we prepare for Cancún, we cannot evade the need for making progress – significant
progress – on agriculture, which occupies center stage in this Round.  There is unquestionable
commitment to continue work, but we are not sure as to whether the political will and the necessary
negotiating authority are there.  This is another area where technical work alone will not substitute for
the change in attitude that is required.
In its oversight capacity, we think the TNC should direct the Special Session to continue the
work both in the technical areas but also without failing to simultaneously address the core of thenegotiations, namely the three pillars.  We interpre t the statement by the Chairman of the Special
Session to mean that in carrying out his consultations he will also give appropriate attention to the
core items of the agriculture negotiations.
Brazil will continue to engage constructively, as we have done so far.  We are prepared to
undertake meaningful negotiations in all areas of our mandate.  All areas, however, will have to be
addressed, with the same level of ambition, and sooner rather than later.  If we continue to allow the
steady build-up of imbalances, if we are not moved to restore the credibility of these negotiations, it
will be much more difficult to correct course in the future.TN/C/M/8
Page 45
Statement by Venezuela
First of all, I would like to thank you for the efforts you are making to move these
negotiations forward.  As you suggested, our comments will focus on the issue of negotiatingdeadlines whilst trying to provide an answer to each of your questions.
As regards the question on the main obstacles to meeting the deadlines, we must in all
frankness highlight the fact that the major trading partners have so far failed to demonstrate the
political will needed to reach agreement.  The developing countries, on the other hand, and Venezuela
in particular, have shown ample flexibility, have participated constructively by submitting numerous
proposals, and have emphasized the need to meet deadlines and development goals in order to sendout positive signals regarding the fulfilment of the Doha Ministerial mandate.
Secondly, it should be pointed out that another obstacle has been the failure to establish
common lines of understanding between the Member s.  Indeed, it has been virtually impossible to
draw together common elements of understanding (agreement).  Furthermore, what seems to be moredelicate is that even the perception of the obstacles differs.  It might be added that there are very
diverse interpretations of the mandate given by the Ministers at Doha.
Having addressed the first question, I would now like to proceed to the specific issues.  The
first of these concerns agriculture.  We all know that the modalities should have been established andagreed upon before the deadline that was reached this week.  Clearly, this has not been possible, given
the diversity of the proposals, which were thoroughly reviewed at the negotiating session of the
Committee on Agriculture.  However, turning to the most important part of your question – that is,
what can be done in order to make progress - my delegation believes that demonstrating both will and
flexibility is essential (a recommendation directed primarily at the developed countries) in order toachieve results that will fulfil the development goals and aspirations of our countries.  The developing
countries want to make agriculture viable, generate rural development and food security and reduce
poverty, just as they want increased market access opportunities for their products.
We do not believe that this is the right time to set a new deadline different to that represented
by the Cancún conference.  This is a period in which we must work harder and more decisively.  To
reach the Ministerial Conference without having met a newly extended deadline would not be a
positive signal for the international community.  Ho wever, a collective commitment to continuing the
work could facilitate future agreements.
In the services area, due account should be taken of the productive work and efforts of the
Members, the Secretariat and the Chairman to establish the modalities.
Today, it is important to reaffirm the clos e link between autonomous liberalization and the
developing countries, which have carried out significant reforms and adjustments over recent years,
gaining political strength at domestic level.  Such achievements should be acknowledged in the
ongoing negotiations.
With regard to the third point concerning additional flexibility in positions on market access
modalities, I feel compelled to point out once again that the developing countries have shown ample
flexibility and that economic, social, and in many cases political conditions make greater openness in
this matter very difficult.  Flexibility, in this case, should again be on the part of the major tradingpartners, who firstly need to recognize the difficulties experienced by the developing countries in
order to grasp the potential development implications of each proposal and should also increase their
efforts in the fields of technical cooperation and national capacity-building, thereby not only
promoting better understanding of the theoretical aspects of the proposals, but also creating
production and management capacity in our countries.TN/C/M/8
Page 46
Turning now to the question of how to generate the necessary momentum to push ahead with
the dispute settlement negotiations as the deadline draws nearer, Venezuela urges all Members to
begin restructuring the negotiations in the little time that remains, so that by May we will have
reached agreement on basic and non-controversial issues.  We have before us various realistic
proposals that seek to gradually improve the Dispute Settlement Understanding, especially byaddressing the inconsistencies regarding procedure and application.  However, there are other
proposals that, in our opinion, are far removed from the desired objectives and that, instead of
enhancing the DSU, seek to radically change its pillars, which is not the mandate that was given to us.
Our task, as laid down by the Ministers, is to improve and clarify the functioning of the DSU.
To conclude, what we need is greater willingness to expedite the process of mutual
understanding in order to achieve our goals.  This involves finding effective mechanisms to establishcommon points of agreement (middle ground, understanding), and the key requirement here is
political will; without it, imaginative and academically complex exercises such as the one we are
engaged in today, will not be effective.  We must avoid making or imposing restrictive interpretations
of the Doha Declaration, the product of a delicate balance, as this can only hamper progress in the
negotiations.
Mr Chairman, my delegation reaffirms its willingness to cooperate with you, by firmly
supporting your efforts to reach agreements that ar e both in keeping with the development objectives
of the Members and capable of maintaining an equitable, balanced and fair trading system.  That was
the premise on which countries such as my own agreed to begin this Work Programme.TN/C/M/8
Page 47
Statement by Hungary
Let me start by thanking you Mr Director-General for your introductory statement.  We agree
that there is a need for a practical, forward looking debate on how to make progress, even ifincremental, in the negotiations; there is no reason at this stage for prophesies about doomsday
scenarios, such prophesies can be self-fulfilling; instead we should redouble efforts and continue work
on all fronts in a pragmatic manner to create an environment conducive for decisions we all hope for
in the different negotiating areas; we fear that failing to do so, slowing down or stopping work in
other areas because of our common failure to meet the end of March deadline in agriculture could
backfire and make the situation even worse.  We are also grateful for the questions you posed with a
view to animating the debate today.  I will try to  structure my intervention in accordance with the
questions.
First on the question of what more we would need from negotiating partners to be able to
move in sensitive areas.  We agree with those who say that agriculture holds the key for the success of
the round.  We consistently argued that in these negotiations, all elements of agricultural policies
should be put on the table and be treated in a fair and coherent manner.  Our delegation indicated its
willingness to negotiate about all the elements of our agricultural policy.  Unfortunately, this has not
been reciprocated by some partners.  We would like to stress again that policy tools of equivalent
effect should be treated in an equal way in the agricultural reform process.  The first example that
comes into mind is export support, where it is vita l that all forms of such support, that is export
credits, state trading enterprises as well as food aid in addition to export subsidies, are disciplined in a
manner that ensures that the outcome is fair and does not create new distortions.  Although agriculture
is certainly a crucial element in the negotiating package when talking about flexibilities we should not
forget about the three other areas where deadlines were missed and which are important to make sure,
that the round will indeed include a marked development dimension.  We hope that consensusbuilding will be soon completed on the text tabled by Ambassador Pérez, Motta on paragraph 6 of the
Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health.  In Hungary's view it would be a great
pity if we lost this balanced text, which can provide for a workable multilateral solution.  Our
delegation also expects that work on special and differential treatment will resume soon and that all
issues raised in the special session will be further discussed.  May I recall the serious concerns weexpressed earlier regarding the stopping of work on these issues.  We find particularly strange and to
some extent troubling that negotiations in fact were halted by the most fervent demandeurs on S&D.Another area where would like to see further movement on all issues is implementation.  It becomes a
source of grave concern that some delegations now seem to be unable to continue, even withoutprejudice to their outcome, substantive discussions on all these issues.  Delegations certainly differ in
their interpretation of paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Declaration, but avoiding a substantive discussion
on a non-prejudicial basis seems to us as a very bad omen for other ongoing negotiations.  Being onimplementation I cannot miss the opportunity to comment on geographical indications.  Mr Chairman
we heard quite often in the past few months that European delegations are trying to hijack theimplementation process by insisting on movement on the extension of Article 23 protection for
geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits.  Let me simply note that if anyone
hijacked this process all our Ministers did in Doha when they adopted the Ministerial Declaration.Paragraph 18 of the Declaration clearly states that this issue shall be addressed pursuant to paragraph
12, i.e. as an implementation issue.  In other words this is not a new invention of any WTO Member.
Our delegation expected that the TNC would provide a clear guidance for the negotiations on
extension by the end of 2002.  As we all know it did not happen.  Instead positions seemed to hardenand certain delegations expressed opposition to continue with the substantive discussions even in a
non-prejudicial way.  Frankly, Mr Chairman, the more we listen to the debate the more convinced we
become that this issue can only be solved through making effective the clear linkage that exists
between the agricultural negotiations and GI extension.  We certainly hope that the linkage is going to
be positive, in other words that extension could go forward hand in hand with deeper liberalization inagriculture.  We fear however that the outright rejection of extension would result in a lose-loseTN/C/M/8
Page 48
situation, where delegations interested in this issue would scale back-ambitions in agriculture.  Being
on GIs let me also touch on the ongoing negotiations under Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement on
the establishment of a multilateral register for wines and spirits.  Mr Chairman, in these talks progress
is meagre at best and roughly five months before  the expiration of the deadline set by our Ministers,
and some eight years after the establishment of the original negotiating mandate, the same delegationsthat oppose GI extension are putting pressure on the Chairman of the negotiating group not to come
forward with a negotiating text, arguing that we ar e still at an early stage in the process.  This
delegation, Mr Chairman, does not believe that these delaying tactics will help the overall negotiating
process, in particular progress in related areas like agriculture.  We respect that other Members might
have economic interests different from ours and understand if such Members may need to represent
these interests in a substantive way.  However, none of us should lose sight of the fact that the
negotiation on the multilateral register is part and parcel of the single undertaking and failure to makean honest attempt in meeting the deadline set by Ministers will unavoidably have repercussions for
other negotiating areas.
NAMA (Non-Agricultural Market Access)
Hungary attaches high importance to the further improvement of market access for non-
agricultural products.  The Doha Mandate for market access is more ambitious than the mandates of
previous rounds, therefore it requires an ambitious and comprehensive approach to the negotiations.
In the Negotiating Group's meetings there were substantive discussions on the different
proposals submitted by delegations.  Now there must be agreement on the end goal, but also on the
way to achieve it.  It is our strong believe that realism plays a major role in devising modalities where
all Members can be on the board.
In the light of the agreement reached within the Negotiating Group on Market Access that
"participants will aim at ... reaching an agreement on ... modalities by 31 May 2003", we are
convinced that if the Members were ready to show more flexibility we could reach agreement by the
above deadline.  On the basis of the negotiations we had so far, it seems that the formula approach has
a rather broad support.
We believe that only a single formula approach applied on a line by line basis could ensure
that comprehensive tariff reductions take place across the whole range of non-agricultural products,address the very different levels of current tariffs, reduce or eliminate peaks, high tariffs and tariff
escalation, therefore a balanced exchange of concessions would be achieved.  We consider that both
the sectoral approach and the request-offer modality could increase the imbalances of tariff structures
in individual Members, therefore we do not prefer these approaches.
Concerning the special needs and interests of developing and least-developed countries, after
deciding the tariff reductions on the basis of a single formula, we are ready to consider deeper tariff
cuts for certain products of export interest to developing countries if all Members agree to it.  It is our
clear expectation that the present imbalances in the openness of industrial markets in various countries
will be greatly decreased and the WTO Members with a level of development comparable to ours willalso contribute to this process.  As to the least-developed countries, Hungary has implemented a tariff
and quota-free system for all products from least developed countries already in 1978.
With regard to the non-tariff barriers, Hungary is fully supporting the reduction and
elimination of trade distorting measures.  However, there are many NTBs which are covered by thevarious WTO Agreements and many of them are allowed.  At the same time, there are NTBs where
there is a lack of specific provisions to discipline barriers identified, or where the current GATT/WTO
rules are either unclear or inadequate, therefore the Negotiating Group should consider proposals to
complete, clarify or improve, current rules in these cases.  In this respect Hungary attaches great
importance to the discussion of export taxes and duties export restrictions constitute a real problembecause more and more countries resort to them, mainly because the GATT traditionally focused onTN/C/M/8
Page 49
import policies in the past as the maintaining countri es have refused to deal with this question.  We
are convinced that the problems of access to supplies and of access to markets are linked.  I wish to
remind you that Article XXVIII bis of GATT 1994 clea rly states that "...negotiations on a reciprocal
and mutually advantageous basis, directed to the substantial reduction of the general level of tariffs
and other charges on imports and exports ... are of great importance to the expansion of internationaltrade".TN/C/M/8
Page 50
Statement by Costa Rica
Let me begin by thanking you both for the documentation to guide the discussions which was
circulated prior to this session and for your opening remarks today.
Since December and right up to the present day, we have experienced differences of opinion
which we have not managed to resolve and which have prevented us from meeting the agreed
deadlines in various areas.  This is a serious matter and one which must not be viewed merely as a
situation which has occurred in the past with GATT and WTO negotiations.  The agreed deadlines
were part of the balance struck at Doha and such setbacks must not be taken lightly, in particular
because the issues of special and differential treatment, implementation, TRIPS and public health andagriculture are all critically important to developing countries.
This situation does, however, require us to redouble our efforts in order to meet the objectives
agreed upon at Doha.  Cancún is still several months away and we will do our utmost to ensure that
the balance of the results from this Ministerial Conference is positive, that policy guidelines areprovided and that the requisite decisions for achieving ambitious and balanced results in 2005 are
taken.
We are faced with an enormous responsibility, namely fostering a rapprochement of the
widely differing positions which still prevail on some issues.  We must, however, do this with oursights firmly fixed on the common objectives of economic growth, development and poverty
alleviation - objectives the attainment of which is conditional upon promotion of international trade.
Agriculture is undoubtedly one area which will require Members' particular attention if we
hope to achieve ambitious results in others.  This is true of my Government, which seeks broad-basedresults touching on all areas of the Doha mandate.  The agenda must not therefore be overburdened.
We will make the sacrifices necessary to ensure that the agenda is respected because we are aware
that our development hinges to a great extent on the comprehensive nature of the results achieved.
Moreover, we believe that broad-based results stemming from an agenda spanning a variety of issues
will satisfy different Members with differing interests.  The final outcome must be favourable to each
and every Member and a broad agenda is conducive to this.
We are confident that the agriculture negotiating modalities will be agreed upon prior to
Cancún, that they will meet the level of ambition established at Doha for agriculture with regard to the
three pillars and that they will also comply w ith the first paragraph of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration agreed upon by our Ministers.  I refer to the phrase "We... pledge to reject the use of
protectionism".
With regard to market access for non-agricultural products, we are confident that work will
continue at a good pace and that we will manage to agree upon the modalities - which we hope will
also be ambitious - by the proposed deadline.
We welcome the progress made with regard to services and my Government will soon be
playing an active role in this process with the submission of our initial offer.
Great headway has been made as far as rules are concerned.  We consider it imperative for the
Ministers, when taking stock of the progress made in Doha, to give a high rating to progress in thearea of anti-dumping, which is of particular importance to us.
We support both your endeavours, Mr Chairman, and those of the Chairman of the General
Council, Mr Carlos Pérez del Castillo, with regard to special and differential treatment and
implementation.TN/C/M/8
Page 51
We will continue to support work on the review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding and
hope that, once the phase of reviewing the legal texts is complete, we will be able to begin identifying
areas of consensus.  We trust that the deadline will be met.
Finally, Mr Chairman, my delegation considers that moving towards discussion mechanisms
which allow us to examine the broad agenda that our ministers will be tackling in Cancún is a matter
of the utmost importance.  The four Singapore issues therefore have to be considered in the light of
the Doha mandates, regardless of the fact that they are not covered by the work of this Committee.  As
we have stated on previous occasions, and heeding your valuable advice about bringing out positive
linkages, we must encourage discussions that take acc ount of all of the issues which will be dealt with
by the Ministers in Cancún.  Such a broad and comprehensive overview of what the 2005 single
undertaking will constitute will favour such linkages, the ensuing trade-offs and the consensus whichwe hope to reach in Cancún and will give impetus to our objective of completing the Round by the
agreed date.TN/C/M/8
Page 52
Statement by the Slovak Republic
First of all allow me to underline the importance of this high level informal TNC meeting.
We appreciate very much the idea of bringing together the high level capital based officials in order todiscuss the most sensitive issues of the on-going  negotiations as well as exchange of views how to
move forward.  I would also like to appreciate your  comprehensive statement, providing us with very
useful information.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly express the views of my delegation on the process of
negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda, which has been done until now.  In more general
terms, we can share our disappointment that on Monday, we have missed the fourth single deadlineset out by the Doha Declaration, due to the fact that we have been not able to move in the positions
especially in the most sensitive areas.  It is unfortunate, that visible progress had not been reached.
However, it is not our intention to dramatize this situation.  The negotiating process appeared to be
more difficult than we might have been expected, this process can take a longer time to arrive at a
balanced and positive outcome.  Specifically, mandate for negotiations in agriculture recall the long-term objective to establish a fair and market-oriented trading system.
To be more specific, I would like to touch upon at least some areas of negotiations.  Mr.
Chairman, it is no doubt that negotiations in agriculture are the priority among all negotiating issues.
From many aspects agriculture is very important for Members and also in many cases very sensitiveissue.  The discussion during the numerous meetings on bilateral and plurilateral level has shown and
reflected the willingness of Members to build up and create more balanced approach and stipulate fair
conditions for trade in agriculture.  In this light Monday's failure to reach an agreement on modalities
is for us a great disappointment.
When we consider the possible reasons for such outcome, we are convinced, that deeper
understanding of necessities and possibilities of each Member is very important in order to find
common solution.
It seems to us, that unchanged positions of Members or groups of Members presenting
different level of ambitious have not allowed us to build up a common outcome.  It encourages us that
at the same time all of us are considering very seriously to carry out reform process.
In this connection, we are convinced, that the different levels of expectations of Members
should be transformed on further negotiations towards the agricultural reforms, which will create
mutually acceptable terms and solution.  We are ready to work on such formula approach, which will
bring the balance between possibilities and ambitions of all Members.
The issue of TRIPS and Public Health means another missed deadline, however vast majority
of partners including my delegation are ready to join consensus on existing proposals.  Since the
adoption of this important issue nay lead to more positive consideration in other areas, any delegation
would life to recall for the finishing of the work as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, in regard to the negotiations in the area of services, allow a to egress our
relative satisfaction with the way, in which these negotiations are moving ahead.  We appreciate
positive sign of goodwill and collective engage ment, which have been shown by adopting the
Modalities for the Treatment of Autonomous Liberalization.  31 March was the deadline for thesubmission of the initial offers and we do hope, that even not many Members were able to submit
offers on time, the reasons for non submissions may be different from technical to tactical.  My
delegation is still working very intensively on the preparation of our own initial offer.
The area of market access in non-agricultural products as a part of the single undertaking is
also very important for my delegation.  We are ready to work more intensively in order to create theTN/C/M/8
Page 53
modalities until the May deadline.  Furthermore, non-agricultural products belong to three pillars of
market access.
At the end, Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to express our readiness to stand firmly
by the objectives of the mandate laid down in the Doha Ministerial Declaration and allow me toreiterate our readiness to take an active and responsible role in this important period, preparing the
proposals for Ministerial Conference in Cancún.  Mr. Chairman, we are ready to show additional
flexibility in the context of achieving an overall balance in the negotiations and we are prepared to
reconsider new approaches in order to find more balanced and realistic results.TN/C/M/8
Page 54
Statement by Malaysia
Mr. Chairman, the questions you have raised for us today are indeed most timely, given that
two days ago we failed, yet again, to meet anothe r important deadline.  I would like to say at the
outset that for developing countries like Malaysia who are not the demandeurs of the new round, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to convince domestic constituencies of the promise of development
contained in the Doha Development Agenda when these important deadlines which are closely tied to
the interests of developing countries have been missed.  I must say that the sequencing of the
deadlines have been intended for confidence building for the developing countries.  Missing these
deadlines does not help to build confidence or trust.
On your first question, we think that it should be directed at the major proponents of the new
round of the trade negotiations.  It should be reminded that certain trading partners have argued that
trade liberalization in agriculture would have to be done in the context of a comprehensive round.
And now that we have the round we are left guessing mid-way into the negotiations as to where and
when the positive movement in agriculture will take place.  We call on those who are holding back thenegotiations to show political will, to signal co mmitment and readiness to engage seriously in the
current negotiations.
On the S&D and Implementation issues, the DDA will become a farce if certain countries still
intend to use the development round to unravel the very essence of what the development dimensionin the WTO stands for.  Negotiations on S&D and Implementation issues cannot and should not be
sidelined.  It is therefore not only inappropriate or realistic to expect countries to move in sensitive
areas, in particular areas that are not even within the negotiating mandate, when the mandated
negotiations and the development issues are being given scant attention.
As regards the second question, Malaysia has and continues to engage constructively in all the
negotiations and discussions in good faith.  We have shown flexibility where appropriate.  We
sincerely believe that it is really up to the DDA demandeurs to respond to the flexibility shown.
Malaysia has stretched its flexibility and, I repeat, will find it increasingly difficult to do so until
genuine movement is made on the issues of relevanc e that will ensure market access for our industrial
and agriculture products, and the commitment not to pressure market opening in the services sector
where we are not ready to liberalize further, or having rules that help in the development ofdeveloping countries and to accept the reality that binding rules in new and traditional areas that
impede on development-related goals will only cause further resentment.
As to your third question, I would like to say that all issues should be accorded the same
priority and attention.  Picking on issues is not desirable, we should aim for an overall balance.  Assuch a reality check is needed given that on all issues deadlines have not been met.  Equally
important, the reality check will have to be undertaken at an appropriate stage before Cancún.  The
reality check should include:
- frank assessment as to where we are on all the issues and whether it is necessary to
lower expectations for Cancún, given the internal difficulties that we face and theexternal environment that is volatile;
- to accept the fact that certain new issues will pose tremendous difficulties for many
developing countries and whether pushing them through in Cancún at all cost could in
the end alienate the countries that the DDA is supposed to help in the first place;
- to assess the possibility of having a meaningful first package on the development
issues by Cancún and to move positively on the market access issues;
- negotiations must take place in Geneva and it is from Geneva that specific
multilaterally identified issues have to be di stilled out for Ministers to resolve at theirTN/C/M/8
Page 55
level.  We should try to avoid a situation where a broad range of the Doha
Development Work Programme has to be brought to Cancún for Ministerial decision.
To this end, we need to draw a timeline before Cancún that will decide on what we want at
the Ministerial Conference.  And by the July TNC, Members will need to assess where we are andshould by then have an outline of the possible results for the Conference.TN/C/M/8
Page 56
Statement by Switzerland
Mr Chairman, I thank you for having organized this meeting, and for your introduction, which
indicated that, despite all the problems, a large amount of work has been done and the basis forprogress exists.  Before replying to your questions, I would like to make three observations.  Three
major changes have come about since the end of the Uruguay Round.  First, it is a good thing that we
have an increased number of Members and an increased number of active Members.  The advantage is
that we have perhaps now a more nuanced view of problems, given the differences in situation
between the Members of this organization.  The second major change is that it is no longer
fashionable to speak of a common conception, a grand design or a "big bang," but rather, step-by-step
efforts are attempted in a given direction.  I believe our Doha Round project is part of this trend,which is perhaps why we have a certain number of serious difficulties.  Thirdly, at the end of the
Uruguay Round, when we had just finished negotiating, trade liberalization was practically not
contested.  Today, everybody takes note of studies showing the benefits of liberalization, but almost
all conclude that these are good theories for others, but not for us.
Switzerland remains firmly attached to the concept of progressive trade liberalization, even in
the most difficult sector for us, namely agriculture.  Domestically, liberalization efforts are
accompanied by a certain number of measures, in the social domain, as also in the regional and
environmental areas.  If we want to sell the idea of liberalization in the future, we must also consider
these accompanying measures so as to be sure of the support of the majority in our countries.  Thesecond recipe for getting the message of liberalization through is modulation.  In function of the
degree of development and of the economic sensitivity of Members, the degree of commitment should
be modulated.  In this case, the distinction between developing countries and developed countries is
not an absolute criteria.  I believe we need the courage to integrate this into our thinking.  Finally,
there is the element of balance.  Much is said about balance, but what is important is that, at the end ofthe negotiations, we have a balanced result – each Member must be able to go home with the belief
that he has won.  No-one should be pushed into the loser's camp.
There was a balance in the Doha Declaration, there had to be one at the end, and in order to
maintain this balance, there was a need for a balanced approach.  In agriculture, there were
competitive and vulnerable agricultures.  An approach which favours only one of these categories is
destined to failure.  The difficulty is in finding a perfect blend between significant steps towardsliberalization and accompanying measures which allowed all to participate in the efforts.
You ask a question about flexibility, Mr. Chairman.  My delegation is flexible, in order to
support all areas which interest developing countries and which allow vulnerable economies to
progress along the path of liberalization.  We expect all Members to engage in these negotiations,because the integration of developing countries was not only a question of special and differential
treatment, but also one of commitments, and Switzerla nd subscribes to the principle of less than full
reciprocity, as mentioned by India.  If the poorest can make an effort, it would be easier for us to show
that serious efforts had to be made.  If, in negotiations, the majority of Members did not take
commitments, then it would be very difficult to  show the necessity of taking commitments.
On the question of balance, there was a balance to be struck between the four pillars of the
negotiations – market access, for us this is not the core issue, it is a
 core issue, together with special
treatment for developing countries, rules and coherence issues.  For us, the issue of access tomedicines is a coherence issue, where this organization can offer a contribution to resolving a globalproblem which interests humanity as a whole, and this can done in two ways.  First, under intellectual
property, on the basis of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, where we
support efforts to restart this work and the signals apparent at today's meeting encourage us to believe
that progress could be made in the coming weeks.  But there is also the area of market access for
industrial products, where reductions in customs duties in countries which have need of theseTN/C/M/8
Page 57
medicines would be another contribution to facili tating a solution to an extremely important and
painful problem.
On agriculture, I can be brief, because my colleague from Romania has reflected almost
entirely what I was going to say.  I would add ju st three comments.  First,  the history of the
multilateral system shows that if we do not differentiate between agriculture and other areas,
agriculture eludes the disciplines of this organization.  This problem was corrected during the
Uruguay Round, when we developed a mechanism to progress along the path of liberalization from
then.  I believe that it is telling that 75 participan ts have indicated to the Chairman of the Agriculture
Special Session that the approach used in the Uruguay Round for market access is the right formula.
For us, this also holds true for domestic support.  We would like to reiterate that we have more
flexibility to respond to the ambitions on export subsidies in the Doha Declaration.  The approachcurrently on the table has not achieved consensus, precisely because it does not allow the needs of
competitive exporting countries and of countries defending vulnerable agriculture to be reconciled for
two reasons, The approach which is on the table, or was on the table, neglects the aspect of non-trade
concerns and goes further than the level of ambition which would allow consensus.  Thus, we do not
have a basis on which to develop the modalities, but we do have the concepts for their elaboration.These are on the table, and we will participate in the technical work in this spirit.
With regard to Market Access for Non-Agricu ltural Products, this is one of the major
components of the negotiations.  In this area, we must achieve results consistent with market realities
at a time of international splitting of the production process.  It is extremely rare for an industrialproduct to be produced entirely in one single country.  In most cases, the various components of a
particular product are manufactured in several countries.  This situation leads to major international
trade in spare parts and semi-finished goods between the parent company, subsidiaries and
subcontractors.  A country wishing to protect itself against foreign goods would penalise its own
companies, which form part of an international pr oduction network.  In such circumstances, trade
liberalization in industrial products is an important economic development factor inasmuch as the
expansion of intra-company trade and trade in semi-finished goods foster investment and the transfer
of technology.  All WTO Members therefore have something to gain from an ambitious outcome to
the negotiations on non-agricultural products.  Intensive efforts must be made in coming months to
bring this matter to a degree of maturity comparable to that of the other negotiations on market access.
With regard to services, our internal consultation process is not finished, we are due to
address this tomorrow in the second chamber of our Parliament and the government will take it up on
9 April.  We hope to submit our initial offer during the month of April.  The areas of Rules and
Dispute Settlement are also important to us.  In the Dispute Settlement area, if we only achieve a
small package in the coming weeks, we could suggest  that Cancún take the decision to continue the
work, because this was, after all, permanent work aimed at adapting the Dispute Settlement system to
the needs and realities of today.
On geographical indications, we are on the same lines as Hungary.  For Switzerland, the
instrument developed had to have binding force, so as to provide effective legal protection of
geographical indications for wines and spirits.  We are also in favour of a mandate which would allowthe extension to all products.
In the area of Implementation, my delegation will work constructively to find solutions.  For
us, according to the letter and the spirit of paragraph 12, the TNC is in a position to intervene directly
in the handling of implementation-related issues.  This is all the more necessary as such issues arepolitically highly sensitive.  On the Singapore issues, we are obviously in favour of developing
modalities for negotiations.  We believe the modalities should differentiate the issues in accordance
with three criteria:  (i) the nature of the issue;  (i i) the degree of maturity reached since it has been the
subject of discussion in this forum; and (iii) linkages with the current negotiations, for example trade
facilitation is a indispensable complement to the negotiations on market access.TN/C/M/8
Page 58
Cancún, Mr. Chairman, is an intermediate stage.  The first objective should be that everyone
must understand that not only must it be a success, it also has to be seen to be a success.  It is thus
essential not to set out now unrealistic expectations which would inevitably not be met if agreement is
not reached.  Ministers in Cancún will have three agenda items in line with paragraph 45.  They will
have to take stock of progress, and since this was the Ministers business, we do not need to undertakepreparations.  They will give political guidance, here collective guidance for our Ministers could be
useful.  And they will take the necessary decisions, and certain delegations had set out the decisions
which will be necessary and I agree with this list.  Finally, many have said, wrongly, that the Cancún
Conference must not be overloaded.  The Confer ence could address 30 issues, but the Ministers will
not be able to address 30 outstanding questions.  I believe that, in the preparatory process, it is
necessary to identify the few fundamental questions to which Ministers must respond so that we can
take our enterprise towards success at the end of next year.  Mr. Chairman, I would like to end bywishing you all the strength, creativity and imagination necessary to be able to pilot this process
safely, and be assured that you can always count on my delegation.TN/C/M/8
Page 59
Statement by Pakistan
Thank you for your precise and factual opening remarks.
 Like other delegates we regret that we are continuing to miss the deadlines set for us by our
Ministers.  Perhaps partially it is due to the fact that these were fixed rather optimistically because the
Ministers wanted to give us ambitious targets.  That we could not achieve much in 16 months should
not be a cause for too cause for too much pessimism.  Negotiators who have long experience of such
negotiations do tell us that by past comparisons, we are not doing too bad.
 First let me say a few words about specific areas of negotiations and then, I would respond to
your questions.  On Agriculture, we had intense discussions and it seems that there was no headway.
However, as we talked more and more and criticized the Chair's overview paper, it is becoming
obvious that the reason no one seems to be satisfied is that perhaps it was a very neutral paper and the
Chair had a good perception as to what terms can be realistically accepted by diverse interests
represented by 145 countries.  I think that had we taken note of the fact that various figures given inthe square brackets for reduction commitments were indicative for further negotiations and not the
final result we could have been more positive.  From the interventions in the Formal session on
Monday, it is increasingly becoming clearer that the more delegations get used to the Harbinson draft,
the more they feel that perhaps it is workable.  We are, therefore, more optimistic than previously that
this area can be tackled on the basis of the latest draft before us.
 Similarly about the Implementation issues, we feel that the suggestions you put forward
previously need to be looked into once again.  At the last session members did not have consensus on
those proposals but again like agriculture, if we carefully re-examine we might find that the best way
is to follow that course of action and where no progress can be made to follow one of the options thatyou suggested, i.e.:
(i) Resolve the issue;
(ii) Agree that no further action is needed;
(iii) Refer to negotiating body;
(iv) Continue working in the relevant subsidiary body under increased supervision by
TNC and clear deadlines;
(v) Undertake further work at the level of the TNC.
On S&D, we support the new initiative of the Chair of the General Council to give fresh
proposals on the basis of his discussions with all the stake holders.  He shared his approach with us.
We look forward to his document.  We were encouraged by the understanding that some key players
are now showing flexibility regarding changes to texts to make S&D operational.
On industrial goods: As against agriculture, most of the proposals put forward are rather
optimistic and based on Swiss formula.  It would be unrealistic to do so across the board.  We
welcome the EC's statement this morning and its willingness to consider flexibility for nascent
industries.  Perhaps we need to look into sectoral approach a bit more seriously.  If we could agree onharmonization and zero-for-zero approach in such as textiles/clothing and perhaps in chemicals/
pharmaceuticals and information technology, we could be able to make good progress.  For other
sectors we may need a bit less ambitious approach.
At the same time due importance has to be given to NTBs as you pointed out this morning.
Services:
Our understanding is that negotiations on Services are progressing satisfactorily.  However,
there is a need for taking more steps by developed countries to provide motivation for developingTN/C/M/8
Page 60
countries.  If the developed countries can offer substantially improved commitments especially in area
of export interest to developing countries and if, in this regard, they can make commitments that
economic needs test will not be used to restrict market access under mode 4, by way of one example
this would have a positive impact on the pace of negotiations from a developing countries perspective.
As for your questions, may be I summarize a few responses.
Regarding question 1, we need different things in different areas.  In agriculture, need more
ambitious as this area is highly protected and there is lot of trade distortion.
For industrial goods, already very open, and we need to proceed a bit cautiously.  Our
preference is to move fast on areas of interest to developing countries where there are maximum tariffpeaks and to show flexibility for infant industries in developing countries.  On S&D, there is a need to
understand that some text will have to be modified in certain areas and that the existing text should
not be treated as sacred.
Over all we would request developed countries not to slip back from the vision they agreed at
Doha.  The spirit of the developmental dimensions in the DDA has to be kept alive.  We have noted
that at least in 3 areas i.e. TRIPS and Public Health, Agriculture, and S&D, Members are trying to
wriggle out of earlier commitments.
As for your second question as to where can we show flexibility.  In fact in all areas.
Negotiations is "give and take".  We realize that unless we share the burden, nothing will happen.
And here, we believe flexibility from developed countries would augur well for the negotiations.
Regarding areas needing more emphasis, we would list agriculture, S&D, Implementation,
market access in industrial goods, services, TRIPS and public health.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would like take note of the encouraging statements made by
certain developed country members regarding their reaffirmation of their commitment to meet the
2005 deadline.TN/C/M/8
Page 61
Statement by Australia
Mr. Chairman, Australia is committed to securing the level of ambition agreed by all our
Ministers at Doha, to meeting the deadline for conclusion of the negotiations and to ensuringpreparations for Cancún allow us to meet these objectives.
Deadlines have been missed.  This is disappointing, but we should not be too discouraged.
Clearly the deadlines on development issues are important.  We must acknowledge the key challenges
that these missed deadlines represent.  We must  ensure that our commitment to resolve the public
health issue in particular is taken forward in coming months.  In addition, continuing support for
technical assistance is essential and for this reason Australia recently agreed to commit a further$500,000 to the Global Trust Fund.
There is no more important development issue than agriculture, and no more disappointing
part of these negotiations than the failure we have seen on agriculture over the past few weeks.  We
all know that an ambitious outcome on this issue is essential to meeting the specific mandate agreedby all members at Doha and the overall challenge of the Doha Development Agenda.
It is not surprising that it is no easy or simple matter to secure the high level of ambition we
agreed at Doha for agriculture.  But we must not be lulled into a false sense that we will secure an
acceptable outcome without some members taking a fundamentally different attitude to thesenegotiations.  Some of the messages we hear suggest that this change is not going to be forthcoming
easily or anytime soon.
Mr. Chair, I have heard today that agriculture is not deadlocked, that we merely have
differences between positions.  Unfortunately that is not so.  The fact is that we are deadlockedbecause some members are not engaging in these negotiations.  They are not engaging in negotiations
because they are not willing to negotiate in a manne r consistent with what they and others agreed at
Doha.  This has resulted in a regrettable erosion of trust in these members commitment to the
mandate.
Despite claims to the contrary, this agriculture mandate is not something sought by just a few
efficient agriculture exporters, but by the vast majority of members.  It is not an agenda that can besecured by one member simply completing its domestic reform agenda and insisting others accept that
as the limit of ambition.  It is not necessarily a north/south issue.  It is equally important to all
categories of countries.  And most importantly the development imperative of the mandate requires
more than a minimal overall increase in aggregate market access.
Mr. Chair I was struck by comments earlier today on how best to secure the interests of the
least developed and developing countries.  The prescription offered is an old and failed one.  Genuine
reform does not mean simply sharing the crumbs from the table to a select few.  It means real
improvements to market access that allows the competitive strengths and capacities of all to emerge
and develop.
Specifically, the claim that reform can be secured through the Uruguay Round approach is
flawed.  The Uruguay Round approach is part of the problem, not the solution.  A 15 percent cut in
tariffs of several hundred percent does not allow trade to flow .  It will not lead to a substantial
improvement in market access and will do nothing for developing country exporters.
Perhaps a solution is at hand however.  Th e EU suggests in regard to the industrial
negotiations that a 15 percent maximum tariff should apply accompanied by limited special and
differential treatment.  This is very important for developing country interests in products such as
textiles.  But if this is right for fishery products, wood products, leather products, textiles and clothingTN/C/M/8
Page 62
and electronic products, surely it is right for agriculture as well?  Or do different rules apply when the
interests of European farmers are at stake?
It is unfortunate that over the last few weeks, and today, we have see development issues used
by some to cloak their own inability to move in  these negotiations.  This is a very unwelcome
development and one which will only place divisions amongst the membership and between
developing countries, precisely the sort of negative linkage that you, Mr Chair, have sought to
discourage.
Mr. Chair, Australia will do its part to secure  the ambition inherent in the DDA.  We urge
others to do likewise.  On services, we are one of the handful of countries - including a number of
agricultural exporters - to make initial offers on schedule.  We will work for an ambitious outcome onthe industrial negotiations - which should be another key part of the development challenge of the
round.  We will continue to support the steady work on rules, on environment, and on the wine and
spirits register.  We urge care and close attention to the work on DSU reform.  And we are committed
to achieving a positive outcome on Singapore Issues
On geographical indications however, while I am grateful for the instruction offered by one
member on classical negotiating theory, unfortunately the basic precondition - a Ministerial mandate -
is missing.  Those thinking we will agree to negotiations without such a mandate are barking up the
wrong tree.
Listening to interventions today I can only reflect how much work must be done over the next
few weeks.  On many issues members have not engaged or there are very large gaps.  We can accept
the wise words of some that it has always been such  - that bearing in mind the experience of previous
rounds and with diligence we can prepare a manageable agenda for our Ministers.  But I am not
convinced.
Let me add that if, as I thought I heard severa l participants suggest, agriculture should now be
pushed to the end of the negotiations, then we have a serious problem ahead of us.  It is difficult to see
how such a position would not infect the progress in all other areas of the negotiations and call into
question the commitment of members to conclude the round on schedule.  Instead we must insist that
we continue to work on the text prepared by the chair of the agriculture negotiating group, taking
particular care to ensure that such work is not confined to technical issues but addresses the coreissues of ambition in the three pillars.
In conclusion, we have seen today a couple of substantive comments from key players on this
round and the development challenge.  I can only note that one of them emphasised - correctly - the
need for the powerful, positive force of trade liberalisation and the benefits it will bring for allmembers.  The other set out, in great detail, a strong preference for an approach of patronage which is
designed to protect vested interests in their own markets, perpetuate closed markets and extend the
dependency of the less advantaged.  It is no prescription for this round or for global development.TN/C/M/8
Page 63
Statement by Kenya
Thank you for giving us the floor and for your comprehensive overview of the progress made
so far in various negotiating bodies falling under th e TNC.  We note from your overview that the
progress has been uneven.
We wish to associate ourselves with the statement made by Morocco on behalf of the African
Group.  We wish to highlight a number of issues raised by Morocco on behalf of the African Group.
But before we do that please allow us to make one observation.  Several statements have been made
today which remind us of what Shakespeare once said that "nothing is neither good nor bad but
thinking makes it so".  We find ourselves fitting in Shakespeare's description because our thinking orunderstanding differs on various issues under negotiations.
Developing country members including Kenya have been questioning how trade can help
achieve some of the stated objectives in the preamble establishing the WTO as they negotiate new sets
of trade rules.  In our view there seems to be inadequate attention given to what extent tradeliberalisation is consistent with the development goals of countries it is intended to benefit, despite
repeated policy statements by members, and we have heard some today, to design a trade regime that
promotes development.  The agenda we agreed at Doha put development at the heart of these
negotiations.  Indeed Doha promised to ensure that the TRIPS Agreement would give WTO members
with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector enough flexibility tocope with public health problems; it promised a review of Special and Differential Treatment across
all WTO Agreements to make them more effective and operational; it promised to address
implementation issues and concerns in order to offer real benefits to developing countries and it also
promised real progress on Agricultural Market Access and action on all forms of support including
Export Subsidies among other issues.  Now how mu ch have we done to realize the Doha Mandate?
Regretfully we have not honoured the deadlines set for us by our Ministers.
The challenge facing us today is to turn the words of the Doha Declaration into a reality and
deliver a true development round.  The development related issues should be our top priority.  These
issues in our view are not supposed to be issues that are "tradable" or to be obtained at Cancún or after
Cancún as part of a package of all issues.  They are separate issues that are to be settled on their own
and not as something that should be settled in response to another set of "sensitive issues" that somemembers would like to obtain.  We therefore think that these issues should be dealt with as soon as
possible, on their own, and not as part of a "bargain" in which the developing countries have to give
up something else or to pay with other issues.
Similarly, we have stated in the past that the agriculture modality issue be dealt with as a
matter of right by the 31 March deadline.  Unfortunately this has not been the case.  We still believe
that the developed countries have to give up their domestic support and export subsidies, or else
agriculture trade will continue to be highly distortive, a the expense of small scale farmers in poor
developing countries.  This should have been done as a matter of principle by the agreed deadline, and
not as an issue to be "traded" with other issues that some members would like in return.
To avoid possible failure in Cancún, members should therefore first and foremost address
development issues that are of prime importance to developing country members.  These issues that
must be resolved before Cancún include: TRIPS and Public Health, S&D and implementation issues
and concerns.  On TRIPS and Public Health perhaps we should heed the Pope's advice that access toaffordable live-saving pharmaceutical products must follow "an authentically humanist orientation"
and "free from the slavery of political and economic interests".  On Special and Differential Treatment
we expect the General Council to provide the necessary guidance so that the CTD, Special Session
can resume its work without any further delay.  Finger pointing at this stage would not be helpful.
While agriculture has been described as a deaf maker or breaker, it would be advisable to try andsalvage the situation by making substantial progress towards establishing modalities so that membersTN/C/M/8
Page 64
can also make progress on other areas such as services, market access on non-agricultural products
among others.
Finally, Doha was the first step to creating a genuine trade and development Agenda.  Cancún
should reaffirm and rededicate its commitment to trade being supportive of development indeveloping countries.  This commitment should be translated into concrete results during the
implementation of the remaining Doha work programme.
In short Mr. Chairman, meaningful progress in the Doha Round is vital to restoring
international economic confidence, growth and development.  We must find the political conviction to
deliver on our commitments for this to happen.TN/C/M/8
Page 65
Statement by the Philippines
Mr. Chairman, the overview and questions you have suggested to tackle in this TNC meeting
have created a fairly stimulating exchange of substantive perceptions at a higher level and Icongratulate you for it.  I listened to everybody, particularly the major players’ presentation of their
issues this morning, feeling somewhat reassured that all of them, especially the EC, have our best
interests at heart, and the development agenda a central reality in these negotiations.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I am also aware of another stark reality – that the resolution
of all development issues – TRIPS & Public Heal th, Implementation, S&D and now, the agricultural
modalities – which are the defining issues in this whole spectrum of development have all resulted, sofar, in failure.
Hence, enough of this mirage called development-centered negotiations.This delegation must take the line of advocating an agenda with lowered expectations because
this is the only way I can be usefully engaged.
I would have counselled my friends from the developing countries to lay aside the pursuit of
the residual issues in the present package of S&D and implementation issues and urged them to focus
scarce resources instead to the more crucial issues  of S&D and implementation measures in the core
market access and related rules negotiations because there is greater stake and opportunities for future
gains if we did this right in these negotiations ; especially if the resulting S&D/less-than-full-
reciprocity modalities are made more precise, concrete, effectively operational as well as targeted to
certain priorities.
Lest I am misunderstood, let me emphasize that I am not altogether giving up the issue of
implementation and S&D.  I give this suggestion on the assumption that the mandate and structure for
addressing them, by way of the process you Mr. Director-General and the Chair of the General
Council Amb. Carlos Perez del Castillo have put in place, exist, such that it would then be possible to
come back to them after the Cancún Ministerial and before the conclusion of the Round.
After all, the two issues of implementation and S&D have been there since the 80’s.  The
accretion of best endeavour, exhortative statements and promises to address the perceived and
concrete imbalances over the five decades of GATT existence we now find useless in the ultra-legal
regime of rights and obligations that is the new WTO.
In the case of TRIPS and Public Health, which is a new issue with its own dynamics, the
imminence and urgency of emergency situations it is designed to address place the demandeur
beneficiary countries on high moral grounds.  Continuing pressure from the whole WTO membership,
the NGOs and concerned publics will always keep the issue in the front burner towards a resolution
favorable to the intended beneficiaries.  The moratorium declared by the U.S. and the EC do not
provide the long-term solution to par. 6 and we shou ld come to a resolution of this issue in due time
and in any case before Cancún.
This leaves any possible failure in Cancún as arising from the negotiations on the three core
areas, namely, agriculture, services and non-agricultural market access and the related disciplines and
the linkages that Members attach to them, both internally and externally.
Initially, I supported the U.S. focus on the core market access areas of agriculture, services
and non-agricultural products but today this has been expanded by the distinguished representative of
the U.S. to include modalities for the SMC issues and trade and environment – an interest shared in
common with the EC, Japan and Korea which is reminis cent of Doha.  In this respect, we support theTN/C/M/8
Page 66
Indian proposal on transparency so that “explicit consensus” can truly surface in regard to whether or
not the modalities required by the Doha Declaration indeed exist.
On the other hand, the comprehensive EC menu intends to take us to the areas of further
commitments we can ill afford, not only in the broa d SMC issues, but also to GIs and their extension
to products other than wines and spirits, trade and environment, MEA observership, not to mention
precautionary measures, labeling, animal welfare and other NTCs, etc.
In the case of agriculture negotiations, the modalities proposed (in the Harbinson draft) has
paradoxically been perceived as short of the Doha Ministerial mandate by the CAIRNS, the U.S. and
other developing countries but could nevertheless serve as a starting point for serious engagements.
But these have been rejected outright by the EC, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and other countries, on theother hand, as being overly ambitious.
Such polarization is not happening in the two other negotiating sectors.  Can the great divide
between the two groups of protagonists be brought closer to each other? Only the major players can
decide this among themselves.
In the non-agriculture negotiating group, the preferred choice for modalities seems to be the
formula-based approach, specifically the Swiss fo rmula, which could squarely address the highly
ambitious mandate in par. 16 of Doha Declarati on, modulated and/or complemented, to capture the
incidence of high tariff, tariff peaks and tariff escalation as well as non-tariff barriers, by integratinginto the modalities the principles of S&D and “less than full reciprocity” for developing countries.  By
effectively addressing high tariff, tariff peaks and tariff escalation in the non-agricultural market
access negotiations a marked asymmetry is bound to occur with respect to agricultural products where
unaddressed priority needs and interests of developing countries abound.  Furthermore, under the
Uruguay Round approach to tariff liberalization which is supported by the 75 Members or so in theopposite camp, the tendency to shield sectors of high sensitivity in developed and developing
countries are ever present.
In the services negotiations, the Agreement itself and the Negotiating Guidelines (approved
before Doha) provide for the modalities which afford wide flexibility for developing countries.
Notwithstanding this, the early submissions of requests from developed countries turned out to be far
too ambitious, comprehensive and complex for the limited capacity of developing countries.  In thecase of the Philippines, for example, the requests covered issues requiring constitutional amendments,
revision of recent laws arising from our UR services commitments as well as areas which are
politically sensitive, such they could not be considered for what you call “positive linkages” with
other sectoral negotiations.  At this stage of the negotiations and in relation to the Chair’s question no.
3, what developing countries need most would be a stronger dose of ground level technical assistance
and support in identifying and formulating their strategic goals and interests in the negotiations from a
more neutral source to enhance their confidence, facilitate stronger engagement and produce
meaningful exchange of offers.
Members, especially developed, should also show a more positive attitude in accelerating the
resolution of the rules issues, that of ESM which is six years overdue, domestic regulation and
subsidies.  They should also facilitate the implementation of the recently agreed modalities for credit
for autonomous liberalization in a positive and meaningful way in favor of developing countries.
For developed countries, it will be exceedingly presumptuous to expect a “big bang” result in
the services, in fact in the whole negotiations, or even something comparable to the results extracted
from the specific commitments of newly-acceded count ries which have been the subject of grudging
remarks from these newly-acceded Members in the negotiating groups.
The biggest challenge therefore lies in external balance among the three core areas of market
access and rules negotiations and other linkages that Members will insist on.  For example, the ECTN/C/M/8
Page 67
and Japans’ insistence on linking the agricultural modalities to precautionary measures, mandatory
labeling, their own version of non-trade concerns, geographical indication and its extension, the broad
SMC issues and trade and environment, among others, could precipitate an early breakdown of the
entire negotiations.
You have asked delegations what we need from others to move sensitive issues forward and
our answer is, ‘let us get the EC and other agriculture protectionist-minded delegations to engage in
honest-to-goodness negotiations on the basis of the Doha mandate.’ It is extremely disappointing
especially for developing countries like us to hear them preach their concern for the development of
developing countries, especially the least developed among them, and yet continue their perverse
policies of higher levels of subsidies and domestic support which kill all our hopes for agricultural
competitiveness and distort the application of much needed resources for the benefit of even ourglobally competitive farming interests.  Doing right in these agricultural negotiations is our earnest
hope, not through stop-gap measures that are themselves contrary to the spirit and obligations of MFN
and non-discrimination or worst, ensure that much-maligned “infant industry protection” in favor of
selected Members, which only add perversion to the architecture of multilateral, free and open trade.
Indeed, it becomes hard to understand that the world’s largest trading entity might be
deliberately designing a strategy to discourage liberalization on a multilateral basis.  But this happens
only in agriculture because in the two other sectors of services and industrial products, they want a
comprehensive, big bang outcome.
The Cancún Ministerial is not about launching new negotiations.  It is a stock-take from
which Ministers might issue further directions which, in order to prevent an unravelling, must adhere
to the context and the narrow parameters of the Doha mandates.  Although it is always the prerogative
of Ministers to do otherwise, the risk of tilting the sound and accepted balance and the development
emphasis in Doha is too delicate a situation to alter.
Finally, it must be realized that the present global economic and security situation does not
favor big bang liberalization.  Without exception, domestic industries and economic constituencies are
generally defensive, specifically to imports, although with respect to exports, obviously all of them
take an offensive stance.  This defensive stance is further re-enforced by the “single-undertaking” and
binding nature of the outcomes which is the second multilateral trade round under the auspices of this
new regime.  Three-fifths of the WTO Membership are developing and most of them still harbour
some misgivings from the results of the first one.  They will deliberately shy away from making new
commitments on top of the uncertain impact of the previous round especially in areas traditionally
considered under domestic prerogative, i.e., the SMC issues where multilateral rules appear to be of
doubtful beneficial consequence to their development objectives.
The WTO will always remain in a negotiating mode and developing countries would need the
tolerance of time to reconcile themselves to the new challenges of liberalization.  Thus a modest
outcome from the Doha round would be acceptable provided it does not deviate so much from the
Doha Declaration and addresses the fundamental elements of that mandate.TN/C/M/8
Page 68
Statement by Uruguay
We wish to thank you for convening this further meeting of the Trade Negotiations
Committee.  Our statement will be very brie f and I shall come straight to the point.
We find it most encouraging that all Members ha ve now reaffirmed their commitment to the
Doha Declaration, to the deadlines for concluding these negotiations, to the levels of ambition in the
mandates and, last but not least, to the success of the Cancún Ministerial Conference.  That is all well
and good, but it is not enough.  We would have liked to have received guidelines and concrete
proposals as to how we are going to tackle both the substantive and the procedural aspects of all the
issues which are pending prior to Cancún.  We have noticed some steps being taken in that directionon certain issues.  However, in the absence of such guidelines and if we truly want to ensure that
Cancún is a success, the very least that should be agreed upon at this meeting of the Trade
Negotiations Committee is that all meetings and negotiations to be held from now onwards in the
various negotiating areas should be governed by the following four criteria:
1. Adhere faithfully to the mandate agreed upon by our Ministers at Doha,
2. Maintain the levels of ambition in all negotiating areas,
3. Seek a balance in the global negotiating context, not in the exclusive preserve of any
specific sector, and
4. Incorporate the development dimension into all negotiating areas.
Having said that, we believe it is crucial to give greater impetus to negotiating areas in which
further progress needs to made before Cancún if the Fifth Ministerial Conference in Mexico is to
prove successful.  To do so, we feel it might be worth considering supplementing WTO-agreed work
and negotiating programme with informal sessions convened by Members on matters of interest to
them (including at bilateral and plurilateral level), so that no effort is spared to ensure that headway is
made with the negotiations.  We believe we should also consider the possibility of reviewing and
rescheduling meetings in some areas in which the progress that is required by the time of Cancún is
likely to take longer to achieve.
To conclude, Mr Chairman, we believe that th e answer to your questions will depend to a
great extent on the solution that we are able to find to  the agricultural negotiations.  In this respect, the
editorial in yesterday's "Financial Times", in our opinion, seems to have anticipated your questions
and gives a lucid description of the current situation, what the problems are, and upon whom asolution largely depends.
With regard to our own contribution, Mr Chairman, Uruguay continues to participate actively
and constructively in all areas of these negotiations.  We have already given proof of our flexibility
and will continue to do so.  In this respect, Uruguay's initial offer on trade in services was submittedon 31 March 2003, in compliance with the deadline.  We hope that other Members, in particular
developed country Members, will do likewise and table their initial services offer as well as
participate constructively in the establishment of agricultural modalities.
__________