RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/CTD/M/5
29 August 2002
(02-4600)
Committee on Trade and Development
Fifth Special Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 2 JULY 2002
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Ransford Smith (Jamaica)
Subjects discussed:
A. A DOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA ...........................................................................................1
B. S PECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT .................................................................................1
B.(I) TN/CTD/W/4/A DD.1 ..................................................................................................................1
B.(II) TN/CTD/W/3/R EV.1;  TN/CTD/W/4;  TN/CTD/W/7 A ND TN/CTD/W/8 ..............................17
C. C ONSIDERATION OF ELEMENTS OF A R EPORT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL ...........................30
A. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA
1. The Chairman said the draft Agenda for the meeting was contained in Airgram
WTO/AIR/1845 of 24 June 2002.  Under "Other Business" he said he intended to draw attention to
responses received from the chairs of other WTO bodies, concerning the Committee's request to be
kept informed on any issues related to Special and Differential Treatment (S&D) within their
respective bodies.
2. The Agenda was adopted.
B. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
B.(I) TN/CTD/W/4/A DD.1
3. The Chairman said that agenda item B on special and differential treatment had two
components.  B.(I) related to the introduction of a new document submitted by the Least-Developed
Group (TN/CTD/W/4/Add.1) and B.(II) which was th e consideration of old submissions.  The four
documents identified for that sub-item were:  the submission by the African Group,
(TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.1); the submission by the Group of Least-Developed Countries (LDCs),
(TN/CTD/W/4);  the submission by the delegation of Thailand, (TN/CTD/W/7);  and the submissionby the delegation of Saint Lucia, (TN/CTD/W/8).  All those submissions had been introduced, but
there had been no discussion of the Agreement specific proposals contained therein.  He noted that the
proposals made by the African Group were contained in part III of the African Group's submission.
Members would get the opportunity to react to the specific proposals.  He noted that Members, at the
request of the delegation of Hungary, had received a communication which had been informallyTN/CTD/M/5
Page 2
circulated before the meeting.  That submission was available in English only.  The delegation of
Hungary would introduce it under agenda item B.(II), since it related to the submission by the
delegation of Paraguay (TN/CTD/W/5).  He suggested that agenda item C be dealt with in informal
mode.
4. The representative of Uganda said that the LDC Group supported the proposals that had
already been tabled by the African Group.  The LDC proposals were in many instances
complementary to those of the African Group.  He recalled that in paragraph 2 of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration, Ministers had recalled the preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement, and committed
themselves to "continue to make positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and
especially the least-developed among them, secure a share in the growth of world trade commensurate
with the needs of their economic development.  In  this context, enhanced market access, balanced
rules, and well targeted, sustainably financed technical assistance and capacity-building programmeshave important roles to play."  In paragraph 3 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, they further
committed  themselves to:  "addressing the marginalization of least-developed countries in
international trade and to improving their effective pa rticipation in the multilateral trading system."  It
was within that context and together with the mandate provided in paragraph 44 of the Doha
Ministerial Declaration as well as paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues andConcerns, that the two sets of proposals on S&D were presented, with a view to strengthening and
making them more precise, effective, and operational, as well incorporating them fully into the
architecture of the WTO Agreements.  The LDC Gr oup attached importance to that mandate of the
Committee.  The imbalances and inequities in WTO Agreements raised by the LDC Group should be
addressed with the aim, among other things, of finding effective solutions to all constraints to thecapacity of LDCs to benefit from the multilateral trading system.
5. He continued by saying that in the last LDC Group proposal, the Group had mentioned the
need for a comprehensive framework that fully ope rationalized all S&D provisions, stressing the need
for direct promotion of economic development as a major function of S&D.  That proposal suggested,
among other things, the inclusion of comprehensive development provisions in all WTO Agreements,the adoption of clear development benchmarks, the adoption of simplified customs and standards
procedures that facilitated the growth of LDC exports, and an instrument that operationalized the
commitments of providing duty-free and quota-free market access for products of LDCs.  In the
pursuit of the mentioned Ministerial mandate and objectives, and in tandem with the list of arguments
and decisions, the LDC Group proposed, inter alia , the clarification of the provisions of the Decision
on Differential and more Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Further Participation of Developing
Countries.  In particular, they sought a review of the provisions relating to the improvement of marketaccess for LDC exports including the full operationalization of paragraph 2(d) of the above Decision,
with concrete but modest proposals on how that could be achieved.
6. He went on to say that the LDC Group wished to present its thinking on how the provisions
relating to the contributions and concessions to be made by developing countries and LDCs in trade
negotiations, as provided for in Article XXXVI of part IV of GATT, could be made more effective,and hence contribute to the integration of LDCs in the multilateral trading system.  There were similar
provisions in Article XVIII:C and the 1979 "Decision on Safeguard Action for Development
Purposes", and the Decision on Notification Procedures that were crafted in such a manner which
made it practically impossible for the majority of th e LDCs to use it, in the case of the former, and
made its use unduly cumbersome and inconsistent with LDCs' institutional and financial capabilitiesin the case of the latter.  The LDC Group had made proposals for addressing those concerns.  With
regards to the understanding on balance-of-pay ments provisions of GATT 1994, the LDC Group
proposed that the provisions relevant to LDCs be clarified.  That should enable any of them in need,
to automatically utilize the simplified procedures option and hence remove the ambiguity in the
provision that also provided for the possibility of full consultations.  He went on to propose thatapplications by the LDCs for waivers of obligations of GATT 1994, be given a sympathetic hearing
and expeditious granting.  Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing referedTN/CTD/M/5
Page 3
to the provisions in paragraph 18 of Article 2 and paragraph 6(b) of Article 6 regarding, "meaningful
increases in access possibilities for small suppliers and the development of commercially significant
trading opportunities for new entrants in the field of textiles and clothing trade."  LDCs were only
mentioned in a footnote to that provision and thus  they sought a modification which would achieve a
meaningful increase in market access for LDC exports.  With regards to the General Agreement onTrade and Services (GATS), the LDCs believed that due to the imbalances in negotiating strength,
LDCs might not be able to achieve the desired outcome through negotiated specific commitments as
envisaged in paragraph 1 of Article IV of the GATS.  They therefore proposed that special priority be
accorded to LDCs, aimed at ensuring their increasing participation in the multilateral trading system.
The prohibitively high costs associated with th e full implementation of the TRIPS Agreement was a
fact that was well documented.  It was partly with that in mind that the LDC Group sought further
extension of the implementation period for LDCs with regard to pharmaceutical products, and insubmitting proposals in the TRIPS Council for the implementation of Article 66.2.
7. He concluded by referring to paragraph 5 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, where
Ministers had expressed their awareness that the challenges Members faced in a rapidly changing
international environment could not be addressed through measures taken in the trade field alone.
The LDC Group agreed with the Ministers pledge of continuing work with Bretton Woods Institutionsfor greater coherence in global economic policy-making, and accordingly had made proposals as a
contribution to fulfilling that pledge.  It was often said that if one wanted to determine whether a
society, a country or an organization, was better off today than when it had been created, one had to
consider what had become of the weakest and most vulnerable group or groups in that society,
country, or organization.  On 27 May 2002, the LDCs Sub-Committee had met to consider, amongother issues, enhancing the participation of LDCs in the multilateral trading system.  The meeting had
highlighted the daunting problems faced by LDCs in the multilateral trading system, noting the
worsening terms of trade and their shrinking share of world trade.  He said that if the WTO was to live
up to its creed and fulfill its objectives of building a healthy, inclusive, and vibrant multilateral trading
system, it was imperative that the problems of the LDCs within its midst were fully addressed.Indeed, to address them was to strengthen the gl obal trading system.  Members owed it to themselves
to take the opportunity to address at least some of the problems encountered by developing and
particularly least-developed countries.
8. The representative of the United States said that she would take the proposals made by the
LDC Group back to her Government for examinati on as they had only recently been received.
9. The representative of India said that the delegation of Uganda had raised valid points on the
experiences of the LDCs and his delegation looked fo rward to substantial discussions on it so that the
Committee could propose recommendations on the proposals by 31 July.
10. The representative of the European Communities said that he found the introduction and the
first six paragraphs interesting because they contained basic assumptions which went in the direction
which his delegation felt the discussion should evolve.  His delegation did not share all the
assumptions made.  However, the question of what strengthening and operationalizing generaldevelopment principles meant, was worth further debate.
11. The representative of Kenya said that the LDC proposal was in line with the African Group
proposal in most areas.  His delegation was plea sed to see that the LDC proposal had identified
development as the primary goal of the WTO Agreements just like the African Group paper.  The
LDC Group seemed to agree that the strengthening of S&D should not be confined only to examiningexisting provisions but should also include additional measures as envisaged in paragraph 12 of the
Doha Ministerial Decision on Implementation-Re lated Issues and Concerns.  The LDC Group had
also considered the possibility, although indirectly, of having a monitoring mechanism, that had been
proposed by the African Group and his delegation looked forward to working closely with the LDC
Group on that proposal.  The LDC paper identified the removal of all non-tariff barriers to all LDCsTN/CTD/M/5
Page 4
exports.  That was crucial because as tariffs were reduced and LDCs were given quota-free and
duty-free access, they still faced other barriers such as rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary
measures (SPS) and technical barriers to trade (TBT), which had to be considered if LDCs export
performance was to be improved.
12. The representative of Canada said that her delegation had already taken measures, which
would be implemented in the following months, in the direction of some of the LDC Group's
proposals.  Her delegation would compare those proposals with the steps her Government had already
decided to take.
13. The representative of Kenya recalled that, in the last meeting the African Group had given
further information on Parts 1 and 2 of the African Group proposals.  Part 3 of the African Group
proposals, suggested improvements to specific existing S&D provisions.  All the WTO Agreements
and various S&D provisions were covered and it wa s clearly stated what modifications the African
Group suggested to the provisions.  The main objectives for making those suggestions, in accordance
with the mandate of the CTD, had been:
(i) To make the provisions clearer.  It was expected that the adoption of an
interpretative decision by the General Council should mean that all Members
had a formal understanding of the provisions.
(ii) To make the provisions more effective.  The interpretations, which were
supported by the proposals on systemic issues, sought to highlight the
flexibility of the provisions.
(iii) To make the provisions operational through clear interpretations that would
be implemented through the monitoring mechanism and for that to be donewithout prejudice to other means of enforcement of monitoring any other
relevant provisions in any WTO Agreement.
(iv) To include S&D provisions in the legislature of the WTO Agreements by
suggesting objectives and principles for those provisions.  Accompanying
those S&D provisions with clear suggestions on how current S&D would beunderstood and implemented and how and on what terms new S&D
provisions would be agreed and adopted under the future WTO Agreements
and Instruments.
He concluded by making a correction to the Afri can Group proposal.  The reference on page 24 under
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, to Article 79.9 was to be
replaced by Article 70.9.
14. The representative of Hungary said that his delegation had some questions with regard to the
submission from the delegation of Paraguay.  The proposal raised fundamental questions about the
application of the "Enabling Clause" and the national GSP regimes based on it.  Certain aspects of the
delegation of Paraguay's proposal which were m eant to prohibit discrimination among developing
country beneficiaries under the national GSP regimes, gave rise to questions and concerns for
delegations like his.  Paragraph 10 of that proposal identified six groups of criteria usually used byproviders of GSP benefits, in order to differentiate among developing countries.  His delegation had
concerns related to the competitiveness criteria and the specialization and development indices.   The
implication of the delegation of Paraguay's proposal would be that countries which operated GSP
regimes based on the "Enabling Clause" would not be in a position to differentiate among developing
countries on the basis of such criteria.  It even precluded the possibility for countries relying on
waivers to use such criteria.  Hungary could be considered in an intermediate state of economicTN/CTD/M/5
Page 5
development with GDP per capita indices above many developing countries.  His Government had for
decades operated a GSP regime which benefited a large number of developing countries and it
provided free market access for LDCs.  However, there was a limitation in that there was no
obligation under the Hungarian GSP scheme to pr ovide trade benefits to countries richer than
Hungary.  Hungary's level of development, as  expressed by GDP per capita, was around US$5000.
There was nothing under the Hungarian legislatio n which obliged the Hungarian Government to
provide benefits to those few developing countries which had GDP per capita levels above that of
Hungary.  The proposal by the delegation of Paraguay questioned the operation of the GSP regimes
based on the "Enabling Clause" and influenced waivers to the effect that even if countries thought
they needed a waiver to get a possibility to differentiate, such waivers would be precluded.  The six
questions that his delegation put forward were available to delegations and there was one underlying
concern behind them all.  That was whether his Government, in order to comply with therequirements of non-discrimination, would be precluded from providing GSP benefits to poorer
countries if it wished to avoid "discrimination" by not providing the same benefits to countries richer
than itself.  He concluded by requesting that his proposal be circulated as a formal submission and
that responses to his delegation's questions be provided in writing before the next meeting so as to
allow for a detailed discussion at the next meeting.
15. The representative of Mauritius said his delegation, as previously stated, wished to see the
Committee embark on substantive work on the proposals that had been tabled by the African Group
and wished to collaborate with other delegations in  working towards an agreement on those proposals.
The submission by the delegation of Hungary raised some interesting issues.  It suggested that
important fundamentals of the multilateral trading system had been questioned by the proposal by thedelegation of Paraguay.  His delegation believed that the proposals made by the delegation of
Paraguay could have important implications and potentially adverse effects on the development of
several developing countries.  The system of waivers was an integral element of the WTO multilateral
trading system.  That had been fully entrenched in the WTO architecture in the context of the overall
balance of rights and obligations of Members.  His delegation looked forward to the responses that thedelegation of Paraguay would provide to the questions posed by the delegation of Hungary.
16. The representative of Paraguay said that the questions posed by the Hungarian delegation
enriched the debate on waivers, the consequences of them, and the effective application of the
"Enabling Clause."  The questions would be replied to in writing and his delegation would make a
new presentation to better explain its proposal.  The Enabling Clause was a substantive instrument
and an integral part of the whole framework of S&D in the WTO.  It was one of the mechanisms
which, in an efficient operative manner, contributed to the development of developing countries.  Itwas a systemic instrument that had a direct impact on effective access to markets and it thus called for
a substantive discussion.  He recalled that the granting of privileges for developing countries under
the GSP was provided by the developed countries and was dependent on the will of the developed
countries.  For such S&D to be fair, once adopted, it had to abide by the rules and provisions which
were mandatory.  That was the reason why his delegation had requested that the "Enabling Clause" bethe instrument to establish such rules and provisions in a clear and mandatory manner.  His delegation
requested that the benefits of the GSP treatment, which were addressed to one country or a given
group of countries, not be constructed on the basis of a prejudice to other countries or groups of
countries.  A fair and just mechanism for applying the "Enabling Clause" had to be established.
17. He went on to say that in plurilateral and bilateral discussions, a series of specific and special
waivers had come to light.  His delegation agreed with some of them.  However, Members could not
continue to build a multilateral trading system on the basis of waivers which in fact harmed trade of
other developing countries when different forms of discrimination were present.  Developing
countries were calling for secure economic conditions, a stable legal system, macroeconomic balance
and above all predictability.  Paragraph 10 of his delegation's proposal (TN/CTD/W/5), related tosituations that were not compatible with the "Enabling Clause" because of certain GSP norms or rules.
The "Enabling Clause" constituted a decision taken within the GATT.  Some waivers of economic orTN/CTD/M/5
Page 6
political nature might be necessary and had to be considered and justified.  However, others were
contrary to already agreed and established principles which stated that measures should be general in
scope, non-reciprocal and non-discriminatory.  Those principles had to be defended as developing
countries were the beneficiaries of such instruments.  He said that there was no clear determination of
the level of economic development between developing countries and developed countries.  Therewas a clear distinction between the LDCs and developing countries, but there was no general well-
defined level of a developing country.  The delegation of Hungary had flagged serious considerations
which had to be examined and responded to.  He said that the situation called for a discussion on the
determination of which countries were developed and which were developing.  He concluded by
saying that the LDCs should have S&D but, as the Chairman had said, Members needed to
concentrate on the proposals that had been presented.
18. The representative of United States said that a number of the proposals were interrelated and
her delegation had given its remarks in the meeting of 14 June reproduced in document TN/CTD/W/9.
Some of the issues in the other proposals were critical to an understanding of how S&D provisions
had been used, where things might have gone wrong, and how problems might be rectified.  In
conjunction with that analysis, her delegation had been trying to get a better understanding of the
proposals for changes to specific provisions.  Her delegation had enquired about utilization inparticular, and sought, along with Canada, an update on the "Utilization Paper"
(WT/COMTD/W/77/Rev.1/Add.4).  She said that a number of developing countries had submitted
proposals and made interesting arguments about the perceived need to make the provisions more
usable.  Her delegation had waited to hear more about specific case problems.  It had decided to
conduct some more consultations to get a better understanding as it had genuine difficulties engagingin the debate without having more detailed information about utilization.  Her delegation had spent
considerable time going through each of the proposals for interpretations, agreement by agreement, in
Part III of the African Group revised paper, along with the proposals which had already been
submitted to the Committee.  The proposals appeared to make interesting arguments, but there was a
lack of understanding of what was wrong with the original provision.  Each time some progress was
made on each of the provisions that had been put forward, new ones were introduced.
19. She went on to say that while Parts I and II of the African Group Paper had elements that her
delegation thought could be problematic, there were a number of elements on which there might be
convergence of views.  Her delegation had taken a decision to follow the broad outlines found in
Parts I and II of the African Group Paper and had decided to try to pull out those elements on which
progress could be made.  The African Group's complete package was comprehensive and each of the
areas highlighted from Parts I to III covered virtually every aspect of other delegations' proposals.  Inorder for Members to organize themselves in examining any of the proposals, those proposals that
outlined areas of sensitivity and interest were relevant.  She gave the example of the proposal by the
delegation of Saint Lucia, where Members found themselves going back to asking what the principle
behind Article XVIII was.  Interesting discussions had taken place in the GATT about the concept of
Article XVIII and XVIII:C, as a possible safeguard mechanism.  The question was whether ArticleXVIII was meant to replace or add to GATT Article XIX.  She agreed that the Comm ittee had to go
back to the agreement by agreement approach and decide which proposals to keep.
20. She continued by saying that her delegation would have additional questions after its analysis
of Part III of the paper by the African Group.  With respect to other outstanding proposals, she said
some valid points could be expressed for considering specific changes to the Dispute SettlementUnderstanding (DSU) for example.  In order for Members to make decisions on how to proceed with
those suggestions such as the proposals from India, they needed to look at it in the context of the
ongoing negotiations.  Her delegation understood the points made by delegations that Members were
charged, in the CTD Special Session, to examine S&D provisions.  Nevertheless, there were parallel
events in other bodies and Members would not know, unt il later, what the specific proposals were.  As
regards the point raised by the African Group on coherence in international organizations and capacity
building, her delegation had been looking at an XVIII:C issue and found that both of those elementsTN/CTD/M/5
Page 7
were relevant.  The argument made was that it wa s an S&D provision and that developing countries
should be able to use it.  The suggestions made by her delegation to operationalize that provision
could not be taken on board because they had encountered a coherence issue with the type of
obligations that the country in question had been required to take on by another international
organization.  It had thus been barred from exercising the flexibilities within that provision.  She saidthat those were critical elements which had been laid out in the submission by the African Group and
deserved serious treatment, in parallel with the su ggestions to make certain interpretative revisions.
She reiterated that each of the provision by provision suggestions deserved equal treatment.
21. She went on to recall her delegation's previous suggestion concerning Annex 1 on technical
assistance attached to the submission by the African Group (TN/CTD/W/3).  Technical Assistance
was critical because in certain proposals made, such as in the SPS area, there might have been a lack
of capacity of certain countries to invoke the provision.  Her delegation wished to examine thatfurther.  There should be an immediate response to the capacity constraints of invoking the provision.
If the technical assistance provided for developing countries to invoke Article 10 of the SPS
Agreement was inadequate, then there would have to be an immediate response to making that
provision more effective.  The points raised by the African Group concerning transition periods,
merited further thought and analysis.  She concluded by saying that her delegation had fine-tunedsome ideas on proposal for a monitoring mechanism and had tried to get a better understanding of
what was intended by such a mechanism.  Some of the ideas seemed possible to realize.
22. The representative of Thailand said that it was her delegation's view that the norm of the
"Enabling Clause" had been eroded.  She was concerned that the trade preference measures that some
developed countries had introduced had deviated from the norm stipulated in the "Enabling Clause".Some of those were unfairly harmful to other developing countries.  In that regard, her delegation was
in total support of the proposal by the delegation of Paraguay.  The African Group proposal was good
and should form the basis for discussions in order to agree on clear recommendations to the General
Council by the end of the month.
23. The representative of the European Communities said that at the basis of the problem, there
were two concurring principles which concerned S&D.  One was that of rules enforcement and non-
discrimination and the other was of flexibility a nd differentiation.  Delegations had, in different
contexts, used the word "policy space" or "specific measures" catering for specific situations.  There
was a tension between those two proposals and that tension was not just a phenomenon in relation to
that particular proposal.  Other proposals, such as, relaxing rules on subsidies, for example, meant
policy space for some delegations, but might result in unfair competition for others.  There was a
general problem of when those concepts were useful and when they were harmful.  Specific issueslike the "Enabling Clause" and waivers foreseen or granted could be discussed, but it would be
interesting to look at the various forms of S&D to understand which might have a negative effect
when they were applied and which were neutral.  That was not a simple exercise.  In order to have a
worthy discussion on how to make those provisions mo re effective and operational, it would be useful
to have that kind of background.  If half the Membership agreed with the "Enabling Clause" and felt itshould be applied more rigidly, and others which might benefit from specific provisions felt
otherwise, the Clause itself would not be changed.  He reiterated that on each of the provisions,
Members had to have a clear view of what the objectives were and what the implications for the
whole Membership were, not just for the group or for the country which proposed a specific measure.
Article XVIII on the one hand, might be good at giving policy space for a country trying to establishan infant industry, but might at the same time be discriminatory for the neighbouring country who
already had a competitive industry in that field and suddenly experienced a drop in its exports into the
neighbouring country.  There were many possible conflicts and contradictions between the issues.
The most important thing for his delegation was to get the conceptual approach right before getting
too far into amendments or authoritative interpretations.  He said that he did not mean that all theproposals contained such a tension, but many might give rise to that sort of divergence of views.TN/CTD/M/5
Page 8
24. He continued by saying that his delegation would not be able to agree on many of the original
unrevised African Group proposal s (TN/CTD/W/3) by the end of July.  There were questions of
complementarity with other provisions and questions of effectiveness which his delegation would not
be able to answer.  That was the reason why his delegation felt that there was a need to be careful, so
as to make progress and ensure that things were done more effectively than in the past.  He said thatsome proposals might be less problematic, but he thought they would be rather limited in number.
There were many other issues which were not linked to changes of Agreements, but rather to better
use of technical assistance and better benchmarking of how that part of S&D was applied.  That was a
debate that still had to be looked into and which in the end might be as productive as other debates the
Committee had had.  It was clear that part of the result of any exercise would be found in the
complementary measures helping developing countries, maybe not to derogate or have longer
transition periods but to receive effective assistance in meeting the standards and the rules.  Some ofthem, like SPS and TBT, were derogations that would be difficult to negotiate, given the fact that the
reasoning behind them, such as public health, were common goods which were not easily derogated
from, if at all.
25. The representative of India said that he agreed with the response given by the representative
of Paraguay and the supplementary statement made by the representative of Thailand.  He said what
the proposal by the delegation of Paraguay sought to address was the discriminatory manner in which
the "Enabling Clause" provisions were used.  There was an increasing recognition that the "Enabling
Clause" was being used as a political instrument, not as a trade policy instrument.  Its implementation
by some developed countries gave the impression that the letter and spirit of the "Enabling Clause"
was not being adhered to.  It was in that context that the delegate of Paraguay had highlighted theproblem.  The questions raised by the delegation of Hungary could be addressed when a substantive
discussion of the proposal by the delegation of Paraguay was to be held.  In response to the fifth
question by the delegation of Hungary suggesting that one solution might be to abolish the system
altogether, he said that that was neither the intention of the delegation of Paraguay nor of those
delegations who had supported that proposal.  The proponents of the proposal  were trying to ensure
that the letter and spirit of the "Enabling Clause" was strictly adhered by all Members making use of
its provisions.  His delegation welcomed the submissi on by the delegation of Hungary but said that it
raised some procedural issues.  He concluded by requesting that the Secretariat give Members
information as to when minutes would be circulated as delegations needed to see what had been said
in response to comments made at previous meetings .  It was difficult to explain to his Government
that there were no minutes, especially when there was an Agreement in the TNC that minutes of any
meeting would be circulated before the succeeding meeting.  The experience was similar to theissuing of minutes in the CTD Regular Session.  He hoped the situation would be resolved.
26. The Chairman said that the minutes for all the meetings prior to the on-going one would be
issued in English by the end of the following week.  The translations would follow as soon as
possible.
27. The representative of Canada said that she had some comments to make on the proposals by
the African Group relating to the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  There were
nine proposals with respect to that Agreement.  Her Government did not agree with the way they had
been worded in the paper.  S&D had been an agenda item in the past six Special Sessions of the CTD,
but it had never been addressed.  It had been seriously addressed in the last meeting and a joint paper
would be put forward by her delegation and possibly other Members.  The paper would specificallylook at what the Members in the Special Session were trying to deal with under Article 12.2 of the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  That included additional
ways in which S&D provisions could be made more effective through, among other things, improved
information flows.  She mentioned that the subm ission by the African Group also included some
suggestions on notification procedures, which   raised the question as to whether or not, without
prejudice to the work of the Committee, Members should encourage other WTO bodies to examine
ways and means to make S&D provisions more effective.  It was the Special Session's job to look atTN/CTD/M/5
Page 9
how to make the provisions more effective.  However other Committees and Working Groups could
be tasked to look at those questions as well.  When considering the communications received from
other WTO bodies, it was evident that, the TRIMs Committee for example, was taking more serious
action than it had before and would be discussing S&D in the future.  The CTD Special Session would
continue beyond the deadline of July 2002 and in its recommendations to the General Council, sheproposed that Members considered if other WTO bodies could be engaged more actively in what the
Special Session was trying to achieve under Article 12.2 of the Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
28. The representative of Argentina said that, with respect to the proposal by the delegation of
Paraguay, his delegation considered that the "Enabling Clause" should be implemented as it stated
how preferences should be granted in favour of all developing countries.  More than modifying or
drawing up mechanisms, it was necessary to implement it so that discriminatory preferences wouldnot be acting against the developing countries outside that system.  In that connection, his delegation
supported the views expressed by the delegation of Thailand and the delegation of India.
29. The representative of the United States said that her delegation had considered the proposal
made by the delegation of Canada.  It was linked to the remarks that the delegation of Kenya had
presented in the June meeting concerning an elaboration on the monitoring mechanism.  Furtherdiscussion on the African Group's proposal for a monitoring mechanism reflected ideas that had been
clarified at the Committee's June meeting.
30. The representative of Venezuela said that her delegation agreed with paragraph 26 of the
proposal by the African Group and was grateful fo r the explanations given there.  It supported
paragraph 15 of the submission by the African Group on the "Enabling Clause" and paragraph 18 ofthe LDC proposal (TN/CTD/W/4).  Her delegation reiterated the need for maintaining flexibility in
the TRIPS Agreement.  Her delegation had raised the question of whether the proposal contained in
paragraph 24 of the LDC submission, would not have an impact on the work of the Integrated
Framework.  With respect to paragraph 45(b)(i), of the paper by the delegation of the United States
(TN/CTD/W/9), she said that the Committee's work had been limited to existing provisions and that ithad not tackled the possibility of new provisions.  The Committee had not yet considered Paragraph
12.1 (iii) of the Doha Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, nor Paragraph 44 of
the Doha Ministerial Declaration relating to the Framework Agreement.  Her delegation sought
clarification on paragraph 45(d) of the paper by the delegation of the United States.  As regards the
content of paragraph 45(e), she said that the S&D provisions had existed since 1964 and in Part IV of
GATT. They had been repeated in the 1979 "Enabling Clause" and reconfirmed throughout the
different Agreements of the Uruguay Round and at  the Doha Ministerial Conference.  There was
therefore no use in re-discussing those principles and objectives.  Discussions of that type would only
make sense if Members were discussing a new Framework Agreement on S&D.  She reiterated that
Members should not detract from the importance of implementation issues and problems, that were
clearly reflected in the Doha Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns and in
Job (01)/152/Rev.1.  They should be constantly considered.  She said that with respect to theproposals on technical assistance, it was important  to tie in the new obligations stemming from
negotiations to an effective technical assistance plan  and to tie it to a monitoring mechanism.  Her
delegation intended to introduce a services proposal in the near future.
31. The representative of Hungary said that his delegation believed that the proposal by the
delegation of Paraguay was important for the multilateral trading system, and especially for the trade
benefits enjoyed by developing countries.  The operation of GSP regimes was on the one hand
optional, and on the other hand there were certain multilateral rules guiding such regimes.  There were
different views as to what the multilateral principles were.  The question to be considered, as raised by
the representative of the European Communities, was on one hand the MFN principle, and on the
other the flexibility available under the "Enabling Clause" for GSP providers.  His delegation agreedwith the delegation of Paraguay that there was a need for predictability for both GSP providingTN/CTD/M/5
Page 10
countries and for GSP beneficiaries, in terms of their respective rights and obligations.  The present
lack of clarity was due to the fact that there was no multilateral criteria for the differentiation between
developing and developed countries.  It was therefore difficult to be certain about which countries had
obligations and which countries had rights.  It was an issue which concerned a number of countries.
He said that the response by the delegation of India to one of his delegation's questions was in linewith his delegation's thinking.  It would be disa ppointing if the only way to deal with passive
discrimination was for Members to abolish their G SP schemes altogether.  The imports into Hungary
from developing countries and GSP beneficiaries constituted a significant proportion of its total
imports.  His delegation did therefore not wish to see an outcome where the Hungarian GSP regime,
which had certain economic development or graduation criteria, became illegal.  The question still
remained of how his Government would legally be able to continue to provide GSP preferences to
Members which were less developed than Hungary, if non-discrimination became mandatory.
32. The representative of Switzerland said that he supported the delegation of Canada's point,
which to some extent was reflected in the paper by the delegation of the United States
(TN/CTD/W/9).  It was clear from the complexity of the subject that Members had to find a way to
structure the discussion, and that that structure wo uld imply that parts of the discussion would have to
be "out-sourced" to other WTO bodies.  That was particularly true for areas where negotiations wereunderway.  It was important not only to consider existing S&D provisions but to improve those
provisions and introduce new ones.  For example, some of the existing provisions in the Agreement
on Agriculture could clearly constitute elements of a "development box".  The question of the
consistency of such a "development box", which would include reliance on existing S&D provisions,
would best be dealt with in the context of the discussions and negotiations on Agriculture which weretaking place over the following month.  There were  other examples where, to reach coherence, that
would be the best way to proceed.  That did not exclude those provisions which were clearly of a
systemic nature where Members had to continue to focus their discussion.  The design of a monitoring
mechanism was important for S&D.  It was important to realise what the efficiency of such a
mechanism was, and how, through experience, it could be improved upon.
33. He went on to say that it was necessary to have a clear list of subjects to work with so that
Members could promote and structure future discussions.  The submission by the African Group was
a good basis for the structuring of different topics.  With respect to the proposal by the delegation of
Hungary, he said that his delegation was interested in the discussion on the interpretation of the
"Enabling Clause" and in reaffirming criteria for differentiation of countries as a basis for preferential
treatment.  The basis for distinguishing LDCs from other developing countries included economic
criteria and it provided a competitive margin to  LDCs.  He said that when considering economic
criteria, the LDC Group was no longer a homogeneous  group and other countries were clearly in a
similar position.  It was interesting to consider the underlying economic rationale and what it implied
in terms of the possibility of waivers or the re-establishment of differentiation which the international
community could accept.  That included the problem of graduation, which was a topic that had to be
considered in terms of whether it was possible to find multilateral criteria for that type ofdifferentiation.  That was important because, particularly for the poorest countries, preferential
treatment would have to accompany the negotiations and be one of the outcomes of the negotiations.
34. The representative of Australia said that his delegation found the submission by the African
Group to be useful.   It drew together many of the issues that had been discussed in the Committee
and outlined some reasonable pragmatic approaches to improve the monitoring of implementation andcompliance.  His delegation welcomed the proposal for a monitoring mechanism on S&D provisions
and noted that there were several options for such a mechanism.  The monitoring mechanism proposal
was a key element of future discussions and his delegation hoped to see that reflected in the
Chairman's report.  His delegation had concerns with some of the agreement-specific proposals.  The
agreement-specific proposals raised significant issues relevant to ongoing work in other WTO bodies.It was difficult for the CTD Special Session to consider those proposals outside the frame of reference
of work going on in other working groups.  Like other delegations, his delegation supported theTN/CTD/M/5
Page 11
referral of specific proposals to other WTO bodies.  He concluded by saying that a large number of
proposals had been tabled.  It was therefore important for the end of July report to point to a way
forward for the Committee's work in order to ensure that all proposals would be given proper
consideration.
35. The representative of the United States responded to the comments made by the
representative of Venezuela on her delegation's paper saying that in paragraph 45(b) her delegation,
although aware that Members were considering existing  provisions, was trying to address that some of
the proposals for existing provisions were made in the context of specific changes and crafting
different interpretations of the agreements.  That  gave the impression that there were on-going
negotiations in the WTO involving those provisions or similar provisions and agreements.  Her
delegation had tried to find a way to link the parallel work involving the same provisions and
agreements.  She agreed with the delegation of Venezuela that that exercise should not detract fromthe outstanding implementation issues.  However, there were some cross-linkages concerning
outstanding implementation proposals.  She also agreed with the delegation of Venezuela's point
concerning technical assistance linked to the monitoring mechanism.  It was necessary, when
examining the 2003 Technical Assistance Plan, to l ook carefully at Annex I of the submission by the
African Group on "Criteria for technical and financial assistance" and see where Members might bepro-active and make recommendations to the CTD Regular Session.  The contribution from the
African Group was the first time that her delegation had seen a coherent linkage made to the capacity
needs and specific agreement issues.  While the existing Technical Assistance Plan dealt with
seminars and a number of requests to build capacity on WTO specific issues, Annex I of the
submission by the African Group was a comprehensive approach which targeted a set of ideas whichcould put some substance into the existing technical system approach.  It was interesting that that
Annex was presented in the context of the S&D exercise.  It was possible that when considering the
effectiveness of various WTO provisions in a forum such as the Special Session, where delegations
got a better idea of what technical assistance would be appropriate.
36. She went on to say that in paragraph 45(d) of her delegation's submission, her delegation
intended to remind delegations that the multilateral trading system was based on a single undertaking
in the Uruguay Round and that the provisions had been crafted as part of the balance of all provisions
within the respective agreements.  She agreed with the delegation of the European Communities that
the provisions should not be dealt with in isolation.  Members had to weigh and balance their interests
and those of other Members.  With respect to the issue of differentiation among developing countries,
she said that she was certain that some of the delegations from developing countries did not want
Members to simply accept the delegation of Paraguay's proposal or simply agree with the delegationof Hungary on face value.  Her delegation agreed with both delegations and therefore had to balance
how to approach those proposals.  Members had to ensure that all interests were adequately met.  The
representative of Venezuela had made some interesting points as regards the context implied in
paragraph 45(e) of the submission by the delegation of the United States, on graduation.  The
introduction to that paragraph was a specific reference to the proposal for a framework agreementreferred to in Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  She said that in light of the
discussion on the "Enabling Clause" at the 14 June m eeting, Members needed to consider some of the
proposals for changes to the existing agreements in light of the direction in which they wished S&D to
head in the long term.  She recalled that the representative of Paraguay had commented on what
Members wished to do in the WTO multilateral trading system.  Whether the idea of the multilateraltrading system was for all Members to integrate into  the system or whether it was to create multiple
exceptions to the rules to the point where the rules were no longer effective.  Her delegation's
approach was not to eliminate S&D.  A number of Members would be in a situation which required
S&D for long periods of time.  Nevertheless, there had to be a better assessment of where the needs
had been responded to with S&D and where S&D wa s not necessary.  That would allow concentration
on those countries most in need.TN/CTD/M/5
Page 12
37. She continued by saying that the representative of Hungary's remarks were stimulating.  He
had said that if Members wished to provide special treatment to very poor Members, and were limited
in doing so by the fact that they would have to apply it to all developing countries, it would mean that
the most needy Members had to rely exclusively on the major trading partners.  All Members were
participating in a multilateral trading system and in paragraphs 36 to 40 of her delegation's paper,there was discussion about the importance of South to South trade.  Her delegation hoped that the
discussion would not bar Members from the ability to take advantage of opportunities, whether those
Members were developed countries, developing countries or transition economies.  The evolving
discussion and the specific proposals tabled had caused Members to reflect deeply on some of the
ideas put forward.
38. The representative of Chile said that any agreement-specific proposal had to be examined
from the point of view of the effects it would have among developing countries.  His delegation
agreed with other delegations that some of the proposals would be better dealt with in the Negotiating
Groups.  He said that the proposal by the delegation of Canada was interesting and, without prejudice
to the work being done in the Special Session, it was interesting to involve the specialised WTO
bodies in the work.  As regards the monitoring of S&D treatment suggested by the African Group, his
delegation wondered what the consequences would be for the subsidiary bodies.  His delegation didnot wish to see the S&D discussion taken to the different committees.  In that connection, it would be
interesting to get the opinion of the proponents on how that system would be focussed.
39. The representative of Kenya said that the African Group was impressed by the fact that the
majority of Members had accepted the idea of establishing a monitoring mechanism.  There had been
questions regarding its operation and how it related to other bodies.  The African Group would be able
to respond to those in subsequent meetings.  He agreed with the delegations of the United States and
Canada on the use of updating the Utilization Paper (WT/COMTD/W/Rev .1/Add.4).  The African
Group felt that it could be used as a basis for making some of the S&D treatment that had remained
unutilized more effective and allow it to be operationalized.  He said the African Group would be
ready to answer questions on its proposal and with the hope of arriving at a common understanding onsome of the areas that at present seemed to be unclear to other delegations.  With respect to the
proposal to delegate some issues to other WTO bodies, he said that Members needed to seriously
consider the implications of that, vis-à-vis  the mandate that was given to the CTD at the Doha
Ministerial Conference and see how they related.  As regards the comments made on the specific
proposals by the African Group, such as those on SPS and TBT, he said that there were some areas of
those agreements where technical assistance could be provided in order to overcome the problems the
African Group had identified.  The African Group was pleased that their paper could form a basis forthe way forward.
40. The representative of Colombia said that her delegation supported the delegation of Canada's
proposal, in particular the issue of how to refer proposals to the relevant committees.  There were
proposals in subject areas such as agriculture, rules and dispute settlement which it would be more
practical and more efficient for Members to discuss in the relevant committees.  That would leave theSpecial Session to deal with specific proposals.  Members had to be pragmatic and see how they could
move forward.
41. The representative of Sri Lanka raised three point s.  The first was with respect to the request
made to the Secretariat by some delegations for an update of document WT/COMTD/W/Rev.1/Add.4
on the utilization of S&D provisions.  The Secretar iat had provided information on the basis of the
experience of developing countries after the creation of the WTO.  She said that the column
preceeding Article XVIII was empty because there had not been an instance where a developing
country had used that Article since the WTO had been formed .  Her Government had invoked that
particular Article in 1957 .  If the Secretariat was going to update the Utilization Paper, it would be
appropriate to include previous invocations of articles if there was no experience with respect todeveloping countries since the creation of the WTO.  That would provide information as to how thoseTN/CTD/M/5
Page 13
articles had been invoked and whether the Members had been able to achieve the intended objective
of that invocation.  Her delegation did not wish to see the utilization issue becoming an obstacle to the
improvements that Members wanted to make to S&D.  The second point was with respect to the
delegation of Canada's proposal that some issues should be referred to other WTO bodies.  She said
that there was an understanding among delegations that  all the issues would be dealt with in the CTD
Special Session because it would be difficult for small delegations to attend monitor every
Committee.  Her delegation realised that the previous Chairman had taken the initiative to request
reports from other bodies about developments with respect to S&D.  Her delegation preferred that the
issues be retained in the CTD Special Session and that experts be invited to the Special Sessions.  It
was disappointing that there had been no concrete debate on any of the proposals that had been put
forward.
42. She went on to her third point concerning graduation.  She said that other delegations had
proposed that there be multilaterally agreed criteria with respect to graduation.  That issue had earlier
been raised in 1978/79 in relation to the GSP schemes.  It was her understanding that UNCTAD had
been doing work on the issue of graduation and that there might have been some expert group
meetings on the issue.  She suggested that the UNCTAD Secretariat be requested to provide
delegations with that information, as it would give  an indication of how delegations could tackle the
problem of graduation.
43. The representative of Norway said that his delegation supported the African Group's proposal
for a monitoring mechanism.  He believed that Members should aim at having that as deliverable for
the report to the General Council in July.  He said  that the representative of Hungary had posed some
pertinent questions with respect to the proposal by the delegation of Paraguay.  He believed that theproposal by the delegation of Paraguay, together with the questions from the delegation of Hungary,
demonstrated the fundamental aspects of the debate.  S&D, by definition, meant that when someone
was treated favourably, it followed logically that somebody else was being treated less favourably.
That was the essence of the debate, and why the question of graduation had to be considered.
44. The representative of Zambia said that both the LDC and African Group proposals adhered to
the instructions given to Members at the Doha Ministerial Conference, which formed part of the work
of the CTD Special Session.  That was, firstly to identify the S&D provisions, and secondly, to
examine additional ways in which those provisions could, among other things, be made more
effective.  His delegation was encouraged by some of the responses.  He hoped that those responses
would help Members move forward and meet the deadlines that had been given.  With respect to the
proposal by the delegation of Canada to consign work to other WTO bodies, he said that that might be
put in a different light.  It would be more usef ul to request other WTO bodies, which were tackling
different parts of the CTD's work, to make inputs to the CTD.  The mandate of the Committee was
specific and work on S&D had to be addressed in the CTD Special Session.  He concluded by saying
that his delegation were still not clear on paragraph 45(d) of the submission by the delegation of the
United States.  Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration clearly stated that "we reaffirm that
provisions for special and differential treatment ar e an integral part of the WTO Agreements".  His
delegation sought clarification as to the relationship between paragraph 45(d) and that statement,
which clearly assumed that S&D was an integral part of the WTO Agreement.  He agreed with the
delegation of India that the minutes of the Committee needed to be prepared and given to Members on
time so as to help them move forward and al low them to be more specific and focussed.
45. The representative of Cuba supported the submission by the African Group on the monitoring
mechanism. He said that it was one effective way of ensuring that all the provisions were applied
correctly, which would allow Members to identify any difficulties which might arise in their
implementation.  His delegation believed that requests for more studies on utilization of existing S&D
provisions were legitimate.  It was also important to realise that many of the existing S&D provisions
were called "best endeavour clauses" and were not applied for lack of political will.  For thosereasons, his delegation had considered whether several clauses should not be binding.  There was noTN/CTD/M/5
Page 14
solution other than trying to get somewhere with those specific provisions.  He concluded by saying
that his delegation believed that the recommendations to be given to the General Council should
include a positive message showing the will of the Special Session and all its Members to make
progress.  A negative message regarding that process would affect many of the negotiations being
carried out in the WTO, since that process was a crucial part of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
46. The representative of the United States said she supported the delegation of Canada's original
suggestion on utilization, and the delegate of Sri Lanka's contribution.  Each time her delegation had
raised the point of utilization, it had not got much feedback.  Her delegation realized that in some
instances it might be a question of capacity on the part of a developing country to know what had
happened with a particular provision and why the Government was unable to use it.  She also
recognized that there were some capacity constraints among developing countries whose respective
Governments were unable to follow a track record.  She said that the delegation of Sri Lanka'scontribution would aid Members in the analysis of that particular proposal.  The delegation of
Canada's suggestion with respect to transferring some proposals that required intensive expertise to
other WTO bodies was related to a way of monitoring.  She reiterated that her delegation felt that that
was linked to the African Group's suggestion concerning a monitoring mechanism.  The idea behind it
was to have S&D as a regular agenda item in the various expert bodies, not to divorce it from the roleof the CTD as the central body.  What some Members were trying to find out was what the day-to-day
problems with S&D were under a specific Agreement.  Each of the other WTO bodies existed to
manage and monitor those relevant Agreements.  While she understood the concern about delegations'
capacity to attend numerous meetings, she hoped that Members would not dilute the role of the expert
bodies when they convened themselves to immedi ately take up issues when they arose.  She
suggested that perhaps the other WTO bodies could prompt a discussion on that subject so that the
Special Session could better assess what was taking place.
47. She went on to ask whether Members had to wait a month for the CTD to meet to be able to
address a S&D problem that arose, or whether they felt that the other bodies were able to tackle the
S&D issue immediately and perhaps report back to the CTD that there had been a solution.  Expertswere available in the other bodies, the Secretariat staff that worked on a particular issue were
available and had contact with a number of institutions.  Those institutions could perhaps at that
moment recommend a suggestion for a solution.  That was something that her delegation had
considered when examining the African Group proposal for a monitoring mechanism.  She said that
the remarks made by the delegation of Colombia on the issue of taking up some of the specific
provisions in other WTO bodies were important and interesting.  They were targetting efficiency and
substantive treatment.  With respect to what the representative of Saint Lucia had said, she said that
experts from her country worked on more than one issue.  Though her country was large, her
delegation did not have a different person working on every issue.  Members needed to examine that
point more carefully and try to find a way forward.
48. The representative of Canada clarified that what the delegation of the United States had said
was exactly what she had proposed.  Members needed to continuously look at the issue of utilization,
adding the depth of other Committees and, as the delegate of Zambia had said, to then report back to
the CTD.  The CTD Special Session would remain the Committee that considered the issue.
49. The representative of Japan said that his delegation believed that the specific proposal made
by the delegation of Canada was good.  It was important for the Special Session of the CTD to utilize
the expertise of other relevant bodies to facilitate its work.  The representative of Zambia hadmentioned that S&D was an integral part of the WTO Agreements.  The review of the S&D
provisions should therefore be carried out within the context of each specific WTO Agreement,
keeping the integrity of each Agreement in mind.  The input and feedback from other relevant WTO
bodies to the CTD Special Session proposed by the delegation of Canada could be a core element of
the monitoring mechanism.  It would be important to update the information on the utilization of the
individual S&D provisions.  Such information would facilitate the work of the Special Session as itTN/CTD/M/5
Page 15
depended on delegations' understanding of the problems and concerns beneficiary countries faced in
utilizing the individual S&D provisions.  If such info rmation pointed to a lack of capability to utilize
S&D provisions, then capacity-building activities coul d be studied with respect to the specific needs.
His delegation believed that the questions raised by the representative of Hungary and the proposal
made by the representative of Paraguay related to a fundamental issue that the Special Session wouldhave to tackle.  There was a difference between operationalizing S&D provisions and making them
binding.  His delegation believed that a certain flexibility in operationalizing S&D would be necessary
and appropriate.
50. The representative of Chile said that that the African Group proposal for a monitoring
mechanism related to what in Spanish was called, "mecanismo de vigilancia".  Using the word
"vigilancia" instead of "seguimiento" which would be follow-up, would lend a different meaning to it,
which the African countries did not take into accoun t when using the word "vigilancia" in Spanish for
"monitoring".  In Spanish it should be referred to as "seguimiento" (follow-up) and not "vigilancia".
What was referred to might actually be a follow-up mechanism, not a monitoring mechanism.  If there
was a bit of confusion it might only relate to a problem with the Spanish translation.  The correct
word had been used in English, but not in Spanish.
51. The Chairman said that the representative of Chile had raised the question of the
nomenclature for the mechanism:  whether or not it was a follow-up or monitoring mechanism.  It
seemed as though the African Group had a monitoring mechanism in mind, at least in the English
terminology.
52. The representative of Korea said that the monitoring mechanism proposed by the African
Group could be an instrument to ensure the fulfilment of the objective of S&D.  His delegation
therefore supported the establishment of a monitoring mechanism on S&D.  However, it expected
further discussion on the mandate of the monitoring mechanism and the relevant procedures.  As had
been pointed out by the delegation of Canada in relation to the work in the SPS Committee, the
relevant negotiating groups or subsidiary bodies should add their positions with respect to the
proposed changes of the WTO Agreement.  Specific proposals relating to changes of the WTOAgreements would be better referred to the relevant negotiating group or subsidiary body.  The
discussion on the Enabling Clause and the GSP schemes had been useful.  That issue had systemic
implications and in-depth discussions should continue in the Special Session.
53. The representative of Indonesia said that his delegation wished to associate itself with the
views and proposals submitted by the delegation of Uganda on behalf of the LDC Group, the
proposals submitted by the delegation of Kenya on behalf of the African Group, and the proposals
introduced the previous week by the delegations of Thailand and Paraguay.  The discussion on S&Dwas long overdue and the proposals finally submitted should lead to a comprehensive discussion.
Unfortunately, there did not seem to be any progress in the current discussions of S&D.  There had
only been limited consideration of the elements of the proposals and the concerns developing
countries had with respect to S&D.  No concrete or specific area seemed to emerge even though the
deadline was only three weeks ahead.  Specific proposals had been made with respect to specificAgreements and those had to be discussed.
54. The representative of Malaysia said that at previously held informal consultations, Members
had noted the need for further informal meetings to address the substantive aspects of the proposals,
as well as to consider if some of the proposals could be prioritized.  She asked if that was how the
Chairman intended to proceed until the end of July 2002 deadline.  Her delegation found the proposalmade by the delegation of Canada, to seek the views of other committees, useful.  However, the
mandate should remain with the CTD Special Sessi on which should continue to determine the issues
relating to S&D.  Contributions by other Committees would be welcome but should not, in any way,
hinder progress in the Special Session of the CTD.  With respect to the issues of graduation and
differentiation among developing countries for the purposes of receiving benefits from GSP regimesTN/CTD/M/5
Page 16
which had been raised in the interventions by the delegations of Paraguay and Hungary, her
delegation agreed that those were fundamental questions relating to the rights of developing countries.
Nevertheless, developing countries had signed on to the Uruguay Round Agreements with a number
of rights and obligations and those rights, negotiated under existing Agreements, should continue to
apply.  The rights could only be altered in the context of the negotiation of new rights.
55. The representative of Bulgaria said that his delegation supported the proposal made by the
representative of Sri Lanka to request UNCTAD for information on any work that it might have done
on multilaterally agreed criteria for the differentiation between developing countries, including
graduation.  It had become clear in the debate that the issue of the Enabling Clause and graduation
touched fundamental questions about the functioning of the multilateral trading system.  It had been
pointed out that there seemed to be an in-built tension between special rights and privileges given to
some categories of countries and the rights of other Members.  There were ways of easing thattension.  Such tension and contradiction should be solved on the basis of principles.  Whatever
solutions were to be found, they had to enhance the rules-based character of the system and not
undermine it.  It was therefore important to consider the differentiation criteria.  If the S&D
provisions were to be enhanced by the provision of new special rights and privileges to certain
Members, it had to be clear exactly who the beneficiaries of such rights and privileges would be.  Therules-based character of the system would otherwise be undermined and that would be
counterproductive for the beneficiaries.  The questions were fundamental for the functioning of the
multilateral trading system and especially for the operationalization of S&D.
56. The representative of Egypt said that he thought that one of the main reservations that many
delegations had with respect to the proposal made by the representative of Canada was that it would
delay the reaching of conclusions with respect to S&D provisions, especially in light of the 31 July
deadline for the CTD report to the General Council.  If a decision was taken to postpone the work, it
could in any case not be postponed too far.  The specialized bodies like the SPS Committee often had
capital-based participation.  They would therefore not be able to give expedited treatment to S&D
provisions.  His delegation's main concern was that the process would be seriously delayed if itdepended on specialized bodies while the Special Session of the CTD could hold an unlimited number
of informal sessions.
57. The representative of Morocco said that his delegation supported the proposals made by the
representative of Uganda on behalf of the LDCs.  The safety net of S&D provisions which had been
set up to correct asymmetries in the multilateral trading system had not functioned properly.  A review
and a revitalization of it had therefore been decided pursuant to paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration.  The LDCs, which were the most vulnerable group of all groups in the WTO, shouldbenefit from more effective, precise, and operational S&D provisions as stated in the Doha Ministerial
Declaration.  There was an underlying systemic issue related to the possible modification of the
Enabling Clause and the Committee had to proceed cautiously as any decision could upset the system
in the long term.  Regarding the proposed transfer of certain S&D issues to other bodies, his
delegation was of the view that the Doha Ministerial Declaration was clear regarding the mandate ofthe CTD.  Transferring S&D matters to other bodies would only further complicate the situation.
58. The representative of Paraguay expressed gratitude for the support that the delegations of
Thailand, India, Argentina, Venezuela and Indonesia had indicated regarding his delegation's
submission.  He encouraged those delegations that had specific questions regarding his delegation's
submission to submit those to him in writing for his delegation to be able to answer to all concerns.He said that he wished to clarify that the proposal in no way claimed to modify the Enabling Clause.
His delegation would submit a series of answers to the questions that had been put to his delegation.
59. The representative of Zambia reiterated that his delegation had asked for a clarification.  The
current discussion related to the proposal by the African Group (TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.1).  The opening
sentence of paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration reaffirmed that S&D provisions were anTN/CTD/M/5
Page 17
integral part of the WTO Agreements.  However, pa ragraph 45(d) of the submission by the delegation
of the United States (WT/TN/CTD/W/9) requested the confirmation that CTD Members supported the
goal of a single undertaking.  His delegation's question was simple.  He assumed that the single
undertaking referred to in the proposal by the delegation of the United States was equal to the WTO
Agreements.  If that was so, then the mandate in paragraph 44 already confirmed that S&D was anintegral part of the WTO's work.  The clarificat ion sought was why paragraph 45(d) of the proposal
by the United States requested that the S&D issues be brought into the single undertaking or should be
renegotiated.  They had already been reaffirmed as part of the WTO's work, as part of the single
undertaking and as part of the Implementation Issues.  He gave an example from the TRIPS
Agreement.  Article 71.1 in Part VII requested Me mbers to review the TRIPS Agreement, which was
already part of the single undertaking and part of the WTO Agreement.  Developed Members had
asked for a review after the implementation.  Once such a review had been carried out, he asked if itwould bring delegations to a single undertaking or whether it simply was a review within the context
of an already existing single undertaking.  Delegations would not, in the latter case, have to get into
the single undertaking while negotiating, as it purely was an implementation issue.  His delegation
found the proposal by the delegation of the United States disconnected from reality and that was why
he sought clarification.
60. The representative of the United States responding to the question raised by the representative
of Zambia regarding its proposal for possible recommendations on page 7 of document TN/CDT/W/9,
said that with respect to the clarification sought on paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration
and the reference to S&D being an integral part of the WTO Agreements, her delegation was of the
view that S&D was indeed an integral part of the WTO Agreements negotiated during the UruguayRound as part of a Single Undertaking.  When those provisions were considered, delegations had to
keep that Single Undertaking in mind.  Her delegation had added, in the last sentence, that the
ultimate objective was to ensure a single set of rights and obligations to which all Members were
accountable.  Her delegation had, throughout the discussion, raised questions of principle such as
what the actual goal of S&D was.  That went back to the point of the objectives of S&D which hadbeen raised in the African Group paper and in the context of the discussion of the proposal by the
delegation of Paraguay on the "Enabling Clause".  She asked whether the aim of S&D was to achieve
the integration of developing countries into the multilateral trading system or whether it was to create
a two or multi-tiered system forever.  The objective of the S&D provisions seemed to be to enhance
developing countries' ability to integrate into th e multilateral trading system and to create certain
flexibilities within the rules to do so.  The exerci se that delegations currently were engaged in was
how to make the existing provisions more effective, precise, and operational by strengthening them.Her delegation's contribution was attempting to accompany the many other contributions concerning
the objectives of S&D.  In the light of what had already been put on the table by a number of
delegations, her delegation had attempted, in paragraph 45 of its paper, to pull out some elements that
could form a series of recommendations.  That did not mean that Members had to accept them as they
were, but they had been presented as a contribution to the discussion.  Since making that contribution,her delegation had begun to consider the African Group clarifications to their proposal and, as with
any of the proposals that had been put on the table, her delegation found it difficult to analyze it
outside the context of their overall objectives and principles.  All proposals were important and her
delegation was considering each element of the proposals and had found that the African Group paper
helped it get a better understanding, as it was comprehensive and had a structure that seemed to covermost of the issues that had been raised in the form al and informal meetings held.  She did not see any
clash between the idea contained in paragraph 45(d) of her delegation's paper and paragraph 44 of the
Doha Ministerial Declaration.
B.(II) TN/CTD/W/3/R
EV.1;  TN/CTD/W/4;  TN/CTD/W/7 A ND TN/CTD/W/8
61. The Chairman suggested that the Committee move on to the three other submissions
mentioned.  They were the one by the LDC Group (TN/CTD/W/4), which had some specific
proposals on agriculture, TRIMS and on subsidies, the proposal by the Thai delegation on importTN/CTD/M/5
Page 18
licensing procedures (TN/CTD/W/7), and the proposal by the delegation of Saint Lucia on
Article XVIII (TN/CTD/W/8), all of wh ich had previously been introduced.
62. The representative of Mexico said that, due to the technical level of the content of the
proposals tabled and in spite of what the representatives of Indonesia and Egypt had said, his
delegation continued to believe that the CTD would be unable to hold an in-depth debate on themajority of the proposals.  The CTD work did not necessarily have to await the meetings of the
relevant committees and specialized bodies.  Nevertheless, his delegation believed that each
delegation had to hold in an internal debate and consult back with their respective capitals regarding
the viability of the proposals.  He recalled that paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration
referred to a strengthening of S&D provisions and did not necessarily refer to making them
mandatory.  He drew a parallel to paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration which in many
cases applied to the proposals before the Committee.  Paragraph 35 stated the intention to have afuller integration of small, vulnerable economies in to the multilateral trading system, but that a sub-
category of WTO Members should not be created.  That was something that should guide the
Committee in its discussions on S&D and should be considered in the corresponding proposals.  What
had been stated in paragraphs 6, 24 and 26 in the remarks of the United States delegation
(TN/CTD/W/9) was relevant.  The recommendations proposed by that delegation constituted a usefulguide in preparing the report to be submitted by 31 July.
63. The representative of the United States said that the comments her delegation had made were
relevant to all submissions.  She had been trying to target one specific question in all of the proposals
before her delegation would be ready to entertain proposals that recommended specific changes,
whether to text or to substance.  Her delegation wa s still interested in information from the delegation
of Thailand on what kind of problems it had encountered with respect to Article 3.5(a) of the
Agreement on Import Licencing Procedures.  Such in formation was important and the experts in her
capital would be asking for that type of information.  However, her understanding was that some
delegations had constrained capacity to pull togeth er the information and she looked forward to the
update from the Secretariat.  Her delegation were also planning to hold consultations on its own withdelegations concerned to get a better understanding and thereby be able to transmit information to its
experts.  Nevertheless, her delegation understood the rationale as described by the delegation of
Thailand and hoped to get a better understanding of the kind of obstacles faced in the past.  She said
that she had made several comments earlier with respect to the proposal by the delegation of
Saint Lucia concerning GATT Article XVIII.  In add ition to those comments she asked if the
delegation of Saint Lucia could, with respect to paragraph 2 of its proposal, provide examples of
situations where developing countries had not had any effective means of countering unfair tradepractices and explain the kind of situation occurring in some of the economies which would indicate
that there was a problem utilizing the other available remedies.  Paragraph 7 of the proposal by Saint
Lucia mentioned that the delegation of Bangladesh had made the first attempt since the WTO
Agreements came into force to invoke Article XVIII.  The request by the delegation of Bangladesh
was in the process of being examined.  The Secr etariat might be able to provide information on
utilization, in line with what the representative of Sri Lanka had suggested earlier, which was to go
beyond the existence of the WTO, and provide an account of other Members that had attempted to use
Article XVIII:C.  However, even in light of the situation facing Bangladesh's request, her delegation
was not persuaded that that was sufficient to warrant an adjustment to the Article.  Her delegation was
still examining the request by the delegation of Bangladesh.  Nevertheless, Article XVIII:C hadseveral elements to it and her delegation was not in a position to discuss that with respect to the
Bangladesh case, since that process had not been completed.  Delegations might benefit from
information regarding the history and anything the Secretariat could contribute to the question of
Article XVIII.  Her delegation had done some research with respect to Article XVIII.  The experience
from the GATT might be useful.  If the Committee were provided with some examples of specificproblems, it could make a better comparison of whether or not Article XVIII:C was the answer to a
given situation.TN/CTD/M/5
Page 19
64. The representative of Argentina referred to the proposal by the delegation of Thailand, and
said that it was important for transparency reasons that there was a possibility for developing
countries to present import statistics or related information.  That was recognized in various parts of
the WTO Agreements, as well as in GATT 1994.  Ne vertheless, if a developing country had difficulty
in providing information at a certain time, a solution which would improve the system would be toprovide that Member with the technical assistance n ecessary in order for it to provide the information
referred to in Article 3.5(a)(iv) of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.
65. The representative of the European Communities said that when the African Group proposals
had been discussed, he had said that his delegation was working on those issues, but that he doubted
the usefulness of a protracted debate on the individual proposals.  Nevertheless, his delegation had
chosen to comment on the first LDC submission (TN/CT D/W/4).  It would be difficult to work on that
basis without having a larger framework in mind.  However, his delegation had no intention ofobstructing a debate on individual proposals if that  was what other Members wished.  Paragraph 24 of
the first LDC Group submission contained a number of suggestions of a procedural nature which
seemed to be based on the Decision taken at the LDC III Conference which, among other things,
contained a commitment to keep under review the specific needs of LDCs.  The proposal was to
establish an annual special session of the General Council on the participation of LDCs in themultilateral trading system, as a regular review mechanism, as mandated by the quoted paragraph 3 of
the Decision on Measures in Favour of LDCs
1.  The proposal also mentioned the agenda for what was
to be reviewed, and some of the individual proposals came from that.  His delegation welcomed the
efforts to review and monitor the implementation of the LDC Decision, but any such measure should
not overlap with other activities of a similar character.  In that respect he drew delegations' attentionto the newly adopted LDC Work Programme and the general work of the Sub-Committee on LDCs.
He recognized that an annual session might give greater predictability and stability to that process.
His delegation would therefore not be against having such a process which could report to the
ECOSOC annual review of the implementation of the decisions taken at the LDC III Conference.  In
addition, his delegation was concerned about the over lap of that with any broader S&D review which
might come out of the proposals for a broader monitoring mechanism made by other delegations.  The
Committee had to get a clear picture of who was already monitoring what within the WTO, as a
number of forms and meetings already existed.  One such mechanism related to the paper discussed
the previous day in the regular session of the CTD on the participation of developing countries in the
multilateral trading system.
66. He continued by saying that he wished to make comments on the concrete benchmarks
mentioned in paragraph 28 of the first LDC submission, against which the review should bemeasured.  It was a good idea to identify clearer criteria for effectiveness of measures for LDCs.
Nevertheless, some of the benchmarks proposed were of a rather general nature and their direct
relevance for the S&D provisions was not clear.  Those benchmarks pointed to a number of other
factors than just the effectiveness of S&D.  They pointed to factors such as domestic policies,
effectiveness of aid, absorptive capacity, investment climate, and domestic savings.  Such benchmarkswould therefore have to be carefully considered in order for them to fulfil the proposed objective of
measuring whether LDCs were being better integrated into the multilateral trading system through
trade measures or through S&D.  Paragraph 27 of the first LDC submission related to duty-free and
quota-free market access.  There were a number of indents, all of which were familiar to all
delegations from previous discussions.  The first bullet related to the contractual status of duty andquota-free market access.  It was the "Enabling Clause" which described the treatment and the GSP as
non-discriminatory, non-reciprocal and autonomous.  His delegation believed that, giving a
contractual status to the GSP, or one of its arra ngements, would contradict the "Enabling Clause" and
disrupt the functioning of the system.  The same a pplied to other provisions such as the temporary
withdrawal.  The second bullet stated that duty-free treatment should be accorded to all products.  Hesaid that he did not have to repeat the "Everyth ing But Arms" initiative of the European Communities.
                                                     
1 Ministerial Decision adopted by the Trade Negotiations Committee on 15 December 1993.TN/CTD/M/5
Page 20
More interesting was the third bullet on rules of orig in.  The rules of origin requirements implemented
in the European Communities had already been simplified to match the industrial capacity of the
LDCs and to ensure improvements in the utilization rate, in particular, in the case concerning
requirements related to accumulation of origin.  Those rules would be simplified even further.  The
fourth bullet related to non-tariff measures.  The current GSP scheme of the European Communities,applied in 2002-2004, was an improvement in terms of simplification of procedures and predictability
of market access.  The fifth bullet related to technical assistance.  The GSP scheme of the European
Communities had a strong technical assistance component.  The regulation actually stated that the
European Communities' Commission would ensure that the appropriate technical assistance was
provided to beneficiary countries.  The European Communities organized 15 seminars a year with
respect to GSP in beneficiary regions to allow them to take full advantage of the preferences.
Paragraphs 27 and 28 related to technical assistance and stated that paragraph 2(v) of the LDCDecision had not been implemented and that the anticipated benefits had not been delivered.  The
current programme of improving technical assistance post the Doha Ministerial Conference confirmed
the importance of the integration of developing countries into the multilateral trading system and
provided the right lead to follow-up on those particular provisions.  The Integrated Framework
approach seemed to be the right way to proceed.  The association of the LDCs themselves from dayone was crucial to the process, because if there was no appropriate mainstreaming, there would be a
real problem to deliver later.  He said his delegation would be willing, if necessary, to have a debate
on those matters.  However, he doubted that such a debate would get far before the end of July.
Paragraphs 31 and 32 of the first LDC submission related to TRIMS.  Paragraphs 33 and 34 treated a
related problem regarding the apparent contradiction between the time-bound derogation in Article27.3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures relating to Article 3.1(b)
(prohibition of subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods) and the obligation
under Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement, with paragraph 4 of Article III of GATT 1994 (National
Treatment).  It was correct that a TRIM in many cases could involve a subsidy and that therefore, in
some cases, there might be an element of apparent incompatibility between the two provisions.  Hisdelegation was willing to consider the implications of  such cases.  However, with respect to the way it
had been stated in the LDC paper, it had to be noted that the provisions were different in scope and
procedural framework and that, in many cases, there was no contradiction.  That was due to the fact
that first, in terms of substance, not all the import substitution subsidies were TRIMS, and hence the
scope of the provisions was different.  Second, on procedure, the TRIMS Agreement contained an
extension mechanism, the well-known Article 5.3, while the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures mandated the phasing out of such subsidies by the end of 2002.  That led hisdelegation to believe that the proposed change would substantially alter the rules on prohibited
subsidies as explicitly set forth in the Subsidies Agreement.  The proposal on TRIMS was far-
reaching.  Such a wholesale derogation was unacceptable and would not be in the interest of
developing countries.  A similar discussion had been held in the context of the implementation debate
on TRIMS.  Those delegations who followed TRIMS issues would be familiar with his delegation'sarguments as they had been put forward in detail in that context.
67. He went on to say that the proposal on agriculture related to a point with respect to which the
agricultural negotiations had made enough progress not to warrant a parallel discussion in the Special
Session of the CTD.  Finally he said that the proposal by the delegation of Saint Lucia raised
interesting questions about Article XVIII and the relation to the work programme and the examinationof small and vulnerable economies, which had been discussed the previous day. Article XVIII was
part of the implementation debate and there was an ongoing case under Article XVIII that involved
one of the Members.  That made his delegation believe that it would be useful to discuss all the
elements related to Article XVIII at one time to consider if and how there was scope for
differentiating for small and vulnerable economies and what the implications of such a differentiationwould be.  An indication of that debate had been provided by the discussions of the proposal by the
delegation of Paraguay.  His delegation was not seeking that sort of debate.  Nevertheless it could
engage in a debate on all the elements before 31 July, if that was how other delegations wished to
spend the time left before the deadline.  His delegation believed that many points from the discussionsTN/CTD/M/5
Page 21
confirmed the view that there was a need for a somewhat broader debate on what the objective of the
exercise was.  The Committee would have a better idea of how to bring together the different pieces
of work for a substantive result once it was clearer in what direction the Committee should take the
basic questions on flexibility versus non-discrimination, the objectives of integration or derogation,
and how the various instruments, such as technical assistance, actually help integration and notderogation.  Only then could the Committee claim to actually have improved on the effectiveness of
S&D in the WTO, which was one of the cornerstones of the system.
68. The representative of Thailand said that her delegation had made its submission
(TN/CTD/W/7) in response to the Doha Ministerial mandate which instructed the Committee to
identify the provisions which Members considered should be made mandatory.  Her delegation was of
the view that there was still some doubt about the mandatory nature of Article 3.5(a)(iv) of the
Agreement on Import Licencing.  Her delegation therefore proposed to make it more precise and tostrengthen it by changing the word "would" to "sha ll".  She considered her delegation's proposal to be
self-explanatory, and did not understand why the delegation of the United States did not understand
the context in which the proposal had been made.  Regarding the proposal by the delegation of the
United States to discuss utilization, she said that her delegation did not oppose such a discussion.
However, her delegation was opposed to having that kind of discussion as a pretext for not fulfillingthe Doha mandate.
69. The representative of Saint Lucia said that she wished to stress the quotation of the Appellate
Body contained in paragraph 1 of her delegation's proposal (TN/CTD/W/8).  If anyone had reflected
on the records of the Safeguards Committee or the Committees for Anti-Dumping and Countervailing
Measures, they would have noted that there was a certain section of the WTO Membership that wasnot reflected in any of those records.  Those countries imported the same products and suffered from
the same problems.  Article XVIII was multi-dimensional.  It dealt with infant industry issues; issues
of empowering economic development and growth in the economies; and with how measures to
promote economic development and growth were applied.  As one of the facets it also dealt with a
certain parallel to Article XIX which had been built into the review of Article XVIII. Article XVIII ofthe GATT had been redrafted in 1955 with a view to addressing developing countries’ development
needs.  Article XVIII was intended to provide a suitable solution in the "application to the special
circumstances of economic development of the principle underlying Article XIX".  She said that the
issue of categorization, mentioned by some delegations, was a total misreading of the proposal.  Her
Government did not mean to draw a distinction in the category just because a Member like Mexico for
example was a developing country and was able to use safeguards, antidumping and countervailing
duty measures and was among those who increasingly  used such measures.  She went on to say that
what her delegation attempted to do was to meet its needs.  It was not a question of categories, it was
about ensuring instruments which targeted demonstrated needs.  Her Government had no means of
protecting the domestic market and there were clear reasons for that.  Considering what was needed to
impose any kind of continuity protection measure it was clear that it was a sophisticated tool which
required a capacity many developing countries wi th more basic economies would never develop.  At
the moment, where policy space existed in tariff bindings, a Member could raise the applied tariff to
the bound level.  Where that possibility did not exist, there was no other option than to attempt a
renegotiation of the tariff bindings.  The point was that some Members had what the WTO Appellate
Body had said to be a necessary aspect of the liberalization process, having an ineffective remedy.
Others had none.  That was what her delegation's proposal attempted to address.  It was positive thatthe Addendum to the LDCs proposal (TN/CTD/W/4/Add.1) also addressed Article XVIII:C.  Those
proposals addressed the multifaceted aspects of Article XVIII:C.  The question of whether or not the
Special Session of the CTD was the appropriate Committee to deal with Article XVIII:C was one of
the problems related to lack of use of the Article.  She was not in a position to clearly tell her
Government how to invoke Article XVIII:C as it was not clear to which WTO body such anotification should be sent.  The Article had been written in the GATT 1947 era and it was currently
to be applied in a new WTO structure.  That was why the first proposal suggested that basic
guidelines be set up.  There was an issue related to utilization.  However, she asked how a provisionTN/CTD/M/5
Page 22
could be used when delegations were not even sure of how to use it.  If a delegation requested
technical assistance on how to use Article XVIII:C it would not receive a clear answer either.  Her
delegation had already carried out some research regarding Article XVIII:C and that was the reason
for making the proposal.  Her delegation hoped that enhancing S&D, which was the mandate that
Ministers had given the Special Session, meant addressing the needs of all developing countries.  Thefact was that some developing countries were able to impose certain measures while others could not.
Nevertheless, all developing countries had needs which had to be addressed.  Her delegation's
proposal was not an issue of any categorization.  With respect to the reference to the case of
Bangladesh she said that Bangladesh was an LD C which without doubt was vulnerable.  Nevertheless,
Bangladesh had a population of 140 million and most people might therefore not call it small.  The
case of Bangladesh had been mentioned as there was a notion of dealing with specific demonstrated
needs.  She hoped that there would be a discussion  and the drafting of basic guidelines would be a
start.  If other delegations wished to speak about utilization, they should then explain with clarity, how
to make use of the provisions.
70. The representative of Malaysia said that her delegation believed that the intent of
Article 3.5(a)(iv) of the Agreement on Import Licenc ing, to which the proposal by the delegation of
Thailand referred, was to allow Members to provide a ll relevant information within the context of the
existing governmental machinery.  If the word "shall" was inserted to replace "should" it might not
make a substantive difference to the provision.  It would just lend clarity to the purpose of the
sentence in that it would provide greater security that Members would be able to provide the
information requested within the structure and the existing government machinery.  Such a change
should therefore not cause much difficulty to Members.  It was a proposal that could be considered asa priority issue for an outcome by July.  Regarding the LDC proposal on TRIMS, her delegation
agreed with the arguments in paragraph 32.  TRIMS continued to be an important policy tool for
many developing countries, in particular the LDCs.  Some flexibility should be considered for the
LDCs, such as an extension of the transition pe riod, which could be made on an LDC-wide basis
rather than on a case-by-case basis.
71. The representative of Paraguay said that his comments regarding the LDC proposal was on
document TN/CTD/W/4 and not on the Addendum.  To a certain extent his delegation shared many of
the concerns expressed by the LDCs, and noted, for example, that the conclusions they had reached in
paragraph 15 were closely linked to what his delegation had referred to earlier.  With reference to
Article XVIII he wondered whether the LDCs were not opening different fronts, because the TRIPS
Council was also working on measures that should  be taken on S&D for LDCs and various aspects of
the TRIPS Agreement in that respec t.  With respect to the proposal by the delegation of Thailand he
said that as a Spanish-speaking delegation his delegation would not have much to say, because the
problem was actually only related to the English text.  In Spanish, it was perfectly sufficient as it read.
The three official languages were equally valid in the WTO.  There was not one text that prevailed.  If
the delegation of Thailand considered it necessary to  change the text, replacing "would" with "shall"
and if that would give an entirely different meaning and really expresses S&D for developingcountries, then his delegation would give its full support to that proposal.  Some delegations
apparently thought that it was a minor change, but just as the delegation of Thailand, his delegation
believed that the change was important in ensuring a better operation of the Article on non-automatic
import licencing.  His delegation was also favourable to the submission by the delegation of Saint
Lucia.  The delegation of Saint Lucia could have been consulted to make the proposal in anotherframework.  He believed that the representative of Saint Lucia knew what framework he was talking
about as it related to small and vulnerable economies.  He fully agreed with the delegation of Saint
Lucia and the idea was not to try to create new categories.  The aim was rather to identify certain
specificities of some WTO Members and recognize the need that those Members had vis-à-vis their
situation.
72. The representative of Zambia said that his delegation agreed with the points made by the
delegation of Thailand.  The LDCs felt that their proposals met the mandate to review, with the viewTN/CTD/M/5
Page 23
to strengthening and making the S&D provisions more precise, effective and operational.  It was not
clear how the comments made by the partner delegations would help the Committee meet the
mandate.  He said that he thought that it would be helpful if the other delegations could help the LDCs
understand why, according to the mandate which the Committee was addressing, the proposals were
legally and practically out of place.  Ministers at the Doha Ministerial Conference would have beenaware of the assistance the LDCs received from its development partners, the market access issues,
and the many other issues referred to.  His delegation thanked the partners, as it had always done in
the past.  That was not the issue.  The issue was, as Ministers had observed before the Doha
Ministerial Conference, that the LDCs were assisted by the use of the S&D provisions.  Ministers had
therefore taken the decision to review those provisions.  That was why the Special Session of the CTD
was reviewing the S&D provisions and the LDC Group had proposed what, in its view, constituted
workable S&D in terms of the mandate.  Other delegations therefore had to prove why the proposalsmade were not practical.  To simply refer to the assistance previously provided, as an answer to the
mandate, was not helpful.
73. The representative of the United States sa id that when she considered the mandate in
paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, she saw that the
mandate first stated that the CTD was instructed "to identify those special and differential treatmentprovisions that are already mandatory in nature and those that are non-binding in character, to
consider the legal and practical implications for developed and developing Members of converting
special and differential treatment measures into ma ndatory provisions, to identify those that Members
consider should be made mandatory, and to report…".  The second paragraph referred to the task "to
examine additional ways in which special and differential treatment provisions can be made moreeffective, to consider ways, including improved information flows, in which developing countries, in
particular the least-developed countries, may be assisted to make best use of special and differential
treatment provisions, and to report…".   She underscored that it was, in designing that work
programme that a number of developing countries had expressed an immediate interest in making
S&D provisions mandatory because, as other delegations had mentioned, those provisions appeared tobe of "best endeavour" nature.  The Committee had attempted to hold a discussion on why some of
the provisions appeared to be of "best endeavour" nature, similar to the Enabling Clause which, in
effect, was a voluntary type of preference or assistance given to developing countries, or, in the case
of waiver requests for preferences.  Her delegation had made the point that S&D, in large part, was of
"best endeavour" nature because it dealt with differential situations within and among developing
countries.  Some of the provisions required, as had been acknowledged at the Doha Ministerial
Conference, a review which would make them more  operational, effective, precise and strengthen
them.  When considering the work programme, her delegation could only interpret proposals by
delegations to make certain provisions mandatory, as an intention to also consider the legal and
practical implications for developed and developing country Members of converting them.  In
addition, in order to assess the legal and practical implications, the Committee would have to know
what was wrong with the original one.  That was a legal implication.  The practical implicationswould involve the question of what was necessary to make the provision effective.  It had to be
considered if it was necessary to make the provision mandatory and if that necessarily made it more
effective.  A number of developing countries had said that making provisions mandatory would not be
the only answer as it was possible to make provisions mandatory without actually changing a single
thing in the text.  Delegations would therefore ha ve to get to the bottom of the problem.  The
representative of Saint Lucia had indicated that, in the context of the proposal on Article XVIII:C, the
first threshold issue was how to use the provision.  The representative of Saint Lucia had asked where
the rules and the operating manual were.  That was the answer to the question her delegation had
posed about what the problems with utilization had been.  The delegation of Bangladesh had, in
another context, identified problems it had in attempting to decide to which body to place its requestand the Committee had entered into an exercise on that.  However, her delegation still did not
understand what the substantive issue was.TN/CTD/M/5
Page 24
74. She continued by saying that examples had been made about safeguard action, or recourse to
Article XIX and the Agreement on Safeguards.  Her delegation had been criticised for not knowing
how to use the Safeguards Agreement.  It had invoked it and a number of delegations had then
expressed concern with how her delegation used the Agreement on Safeguards.  Her delegation might
deserve some sort of operating manual for that.  She was not saying that the proposals were notjustified, but her delegation was rather trying to get the basic facts to assist the analysis.  It was not
saying that if delegations had not used a certain provision, it would not be a justified proposal.
However, if no information was available, there might be something else that could be done to
analyze that, and a few more discussions might be needed to understand the basic needs.  She recalled
a situation in which she had been asked by her Government to visit a developing country and provide
some sort of USTR-style technical assistance.  It was clear that if somebody from the United States
went to a developing country, and that individual was an official, he would get a US perspective.However, at the same time, it was important that that official kept an open mind as to what the needs
were.  When she went to that country, one of the things that had been brought to her attention was the
problem of import surges coming in across the border from another developing country.  The
Government she visited did not know that there were certain provisions in the WTO Agreements that
it could take advantage of.  When she explained what was available, the Government in question hadresponded that it did not wish to use those provisions because it would be too public.  The
Government did not wish to use the different remedies available.  However, once it had decided to
overcome the public outcry that one developing country was invoking a safeguard mechanism on
another developing country, which to that Government seemed politically incorrect.  It started to look
for the procedures for invoking the provision.  They  then requested for someone to help them invoke
it.  Her delegation was trying to collect facts about utilization to assist her delegation's understanding
of the problem.  If there were no specific facts, her delegation would have to adjust its analysis
accordingly.
75. She went on to refer back to paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues
and Concerns.  The Committee was also asked to "examine additional ways in which special anddifferential treatment provisions can be made more effective, to consider ways, including improved
information flows, in which developing countries, in particular the least-developed countries, may be
assisted to make best use of special and differential  treatment provisions".  It was not possible to find
those ways to make best use of the S&D prov isions until the Committee knew what the current
situation with respect to utilization was.  Her delegation would therefore reach out on its own to speak
to various delegations to get a sense of the problems relating to the utilization of S&D provisions.
She would talk to the Secretariat to find out if there was any institutional knowledge and then adjustaccordingly.
76. Turning to the proposal by the delegation of Thailand she said, with disclaimers, that from a
legal perspective, the word "would" could be interpreted in a stronger manner than what was argued.
She understood what the delegation of Thailand was aiming for.  However, the language seemed quite
strong.  "Developing country Members would not be expected to take additional administrative orfinancial burdens on this account."  It would be difficult to imagine, unless there had been a situation
where that language had actually been interpreted to  mean less than a "shall", why that language was
insufficient.  In American English, at least thos e who were from New York, would interpret "would"
as more of a "shall".  She hoped that when more feedback on the provision was coming in, it would be
possible to have more flexibility in moving forward on a number of those proposals.  However, theintention was not to disregard that proposal.  Her delegation wanted to target essential issues.  She
recognized the concerns raised regarding her delegation's position on utilization.  Utilization was
important and consistent with the mandate.  With respect to the new LDC submission, which her
delegation was still examining, she said that she thought that there were cross-linkages between that
paper and the submission by the African Group.  Some interesting points had been raised by thedelegation of the European Communities.  The issue of benchmarks had been raised and her
delegation was considering that concept.TN/CTD/M/5
Page 25
77. The representative of Saint Lucia noted that her delegation had reviewed the growing
jurisprudence on the use of safeguard measures, which had been facilitated by the growing
examination of measures undertaken by the delegation of the United States, referred to in footnote 2
on the lamb-meat case the delegation of the United States had been involved in.  It was clear that the
delegation of the United States did use safeguard measures and that had helped her delegationconsider the issues that arose in that context.  The Appellate Body had recognized the importance of
the fact that developed and developing Members could use safeguard measures, anti-dumping
measures, and countervailing duty measures.  Other Members, such as the one she represented, did
not even have WTO compatible safeguard, anti-dumping and countervailing duty legislation.  The
reason why it did not have such legislation was that the actual situation made such legislation
unimportant.  If such legislation were to be put in place, her Government would still not be able to use
it.  Her Government represented an extreme case as it only had one or two officers in its entire tradedepartment.  If the terms of the examination, the investigation, the reporting and notification
requirements and the whole range of technical assessments that had to be made were considered it
was difficult for small governments to cope with.  The resources to make that kind of assessment were
not available.  Members had enough problems just implementing basic commitments.  As WTO
obligations were imposed on Members, some had no ca pacity to exercise the rights.  Those two issues
were related and important.  It was in that light that Members appreciated the multilateral process.
Liberalization could not be sustained if it meant that countries stripped themselves of all defense.  A
discussion on technical aspects of how to deal with import surges was necessary.  That was an issue
she would deal with at a later stage.  Members could begin to address and define issues on the
proposals that had been made.  Her delegation had made its proposal to get clear guidance on how touse Article XVIII. Unsatisfactory responses had been given on how to use the provision.  Her
delegation wished Members to seriously engage in a discussion on Article XVIII.
78. The representative of Mexico sought clarification with respect Paragraph 35 of the Doha
Ministerial Declaration and its mention of sub-categories.  With respect to the proposals made it had
to be kept in mind that a sub-category of countries could not be created.  What was being proposeddid not necessarily imply the creation of a sub-category.  The reference to the non-creation of sub-
categories related to the mandate from the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  That was directed to better
integrating LDCs and small economies into the multilateral trading system.  Members were trying to
extend benefits and measures to facilitate and render certain measures more flexible so that those
Members could integrate adequately.  What was said should not be misinterpreted because that
extension of benefits affected the rights of other developing or developed countries.  He gave the
example of the proposal made in paragraph 34 of the LDC Group's proposal (TN/CTD/W/4).  It stated
that some Members should be enabled to use waivers for national treatment.  If that Article was
interpreted to mean that one Member could implement a technical regulation, which discriminated
against products imported from other countries, then his delegation believed that the measures to
improve S&D should be extended to include the implementation of those provisions in other
Agreements too .  He refered to paragraph 8 of the proposal by the delegation of Saint Lucia
(TN/CTD/W/8).  The third section stated that "Generally, the unilateral response of a larger nation
against a smaller nation carries markedly more impact than the reverse".  That did not mean that a
small country should deliberately establish measures affecting larger countries.  That was what he was
referring to when he had said that Members should not create sub-categories.
79. The representative of Thailand said that the explanation given by the delegation of the
United States was educative.  Her delegation felt that "shall" was the stronger word, and implied
obligations of Members.  In that regard, she assumed that the delegation of the United States would
not object to changing the word to "shall".  Her delegation did not intend withholding information, it
did not want to create additional administrative and financial burden that it could not bear.  Her
delegation would be pleased to provide any kind of information it possessed to any Member thatrequested it.TN/CTD/M/5
Page 26
80. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation was hopeful that
Members would be able to solve the issue raised in the proposal by the delegation of Thailand without
having recourse to working in Spanish in the future  or employing lawyers to sort it out.  He said he
was convinced by what he had heard on that proposal.  He said that one of the proposals in the
submission by the LDC Group on TRIMS stated that "TRIMs continue to be an important policy tool
for strengthening production and export supply base".  That was the argument being made for a
derogation from TRIMS.  That derogation was clearly a means to an end;  the end of which was
development and better integration.  The means, as it was stated, should be appropriate flexibility that
would allow LDC  Members to indefinitely stipulate a local content requirement.  He had doubts
whether imposing a local content requirement on investors would really help in attracting foreign
investment, which no doubt, the LDCs wanted.  He  wished to have a debate on whether the means
were really the ones required to achieve the stated objectives.  There might be other means whichwould also fall inside the S&D category of the WTO, that would work towards strengthening the
supply side capacities of LDCs .  That was a big issue, and Members needed to consider how S&D
provisions within the WTO could help in that respect.  That was the kind of debate his delegation
would have before it could agree or disagree with a proposal like that.
81. The representative of Pakistan agreed with the representative of the United States when she
had referred to the mandate given in Paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues
and Concerns and Paragraph 44 of the Doha Minister ial Declaration, that Members were engaged in a
review exercise.  That review was to make S&D provisions stronger, more precise, more effective and
operational.  The question was how Members were going to fulfil that mandate.  Paragraph 12.1 (i) of
the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns referred to the identification process ofthe mandatory provisions and the non-mandatory provisions, a task which Members had already
undertaken.  It also stated that the CTD was instructed to "consider the legal and practical
implications for developed and developing Members of converting special and differential treatment
measures into mandatory provisions".  Paragraph 12.1(ii) stated that the CTD was instructed to
"examine additional ways in which special and differential treatment provisions can be made moreeffective, to consider ways, including improved in formation flows".  The objective was to ensure that
the benefits of S&D could be translated into real and meaningful benefits to the beneficiaries.  The
response to the question of what was wrong with the existing provisions had been given when the
question had been posed.  Those provisions were "best endeavour clauses" which rarely translated
into real and concrete benefits for the beneficiaries.  The existing provisions did not meet the
economic needs of the beneficiary countries.  The problem with the existing S&D provisions was that
they hardly fulfilled the objectives for which they had been drafted.
82. He went on to agree that in some cases, converting the provisions into mandatory ones might
not mean that the real benefits would accrue to the beneficiaries.  He gave the example of Article 15
of the Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994.  The first sentence of that Article in that
Agreement was mandatory.  The second sentence which talked about constructive remedies, did not
explain what those constructive re medies were, thus removing the mandatory nature of the Article by
referring to concepts which had not been explained.  The intention was that where Members made the
provisions mandatory by changing the wording, they would have to go beyond a simple change of a
word so as to ensure that the mandatory provisions actually became effective, operational, and
translated into real benefits for the developing countries.  The question was not only to convert them
into mandatory provisions.  The mandate was for Members to consider why the mandatory provisionswere not effective.  Members had to get into some  sort of interpretation and clarification of those
concepts which hindered the effectiveness of those mandatory provisions.  Where those provisions
were non-mandatory, they needed to be made mandatory, hence adding to their effectiveness.  He said
that unless there was an effective monitoring mechanism, Members would fall short of the objective
they were trying to achieve in the exercise.
83. The representative of the United States said she was interested in knowing what the
representative of Saint Lucia had to say about the United States delegation's use of safeguard action.TN/CTD/M/5
Page 27
Members could engage in a debate on certain broad issues on specific problems but yet they did not
have an idea of what those specific problems were.  What the delegation of Saint Lucia was saying
was that there was a need for knowledge about how to use Article XVIII:C.  The proposal was not just
about how to use that Article but it recommended changes to Article XVIII:C and expanded the
interpretation of infant industries.  Specific changes were listed as were interpretations and the rightnot to use compensation.  The idea was that even when receiving products from other developing
countries, certain developing countries would be able to resort to a safeguard action.  So when the
comparison was made to safeguard action, it raised the question as to what the intention was.  She
asked if it simply was to clarify the procedure for using Article XVIII:C or if it was to change the
substance of Article XVIII:C and turn it into an alternative safeguard mechanism that would
effectively exempt certain developing countries from following the rules when prohibiting the imports
of other countries including imports from other developing countries.  She continued by saying thather delegation looked forward to the delegation of Thailand's response to her delegation's inquiry.
She said that when her delegation made a point about the word "would", the point was that it was
stronger than "should".  Her delegation was not necessarily changing the English language to make it
"shall".  The word "would" that was there seemed to have enough strength to realize the intention
inherent in using the word "shall".  If there was an instance where that did not succeed, then Membersneeded to discuss it further to see what would achieve the intent of the language.
84. The representative of Uganda said that the representative of the United States had observed
that there were many cross linkages between the LDCs' proposal and those contained in the
submission by the African Group.  That was understandable because most of the African countries
were LDCs and many of them had taken part in the drawing up of the African Group paper.  At theoutset his delegation had mentioned its support for both  proposals.  He said that he hoped delegations
would have the time to read Add.1 of the LDC Gr oup's submission which added some useful practical
and constructive proposals on trying to make the provisions more precise, operational and user-
friendly.  He noted the comments made by the representative of the European Communities about the
question of the monitoring mechanism.  In his de legation's view, it would be useful for the General
Council to have a session that reviewed the questions relating to the LDCs, particularly in light of the
LDC Conference.  His delegation was open to seeing how that could be advanced.  He said that with
respect to paragraph 27 of the LDC paper, his delegation welcomed the assistance that the LDCs had
received and which the delegate of the European Communities had referred to.  One of the problems
was trying to ensure predictability.  What the LDC Group was proposing was a way in which it could
negotiate a legal instrument that made market access stable and predictable.  It was not an
impossibility to negotiate an instrument which would make  quota free access more reliable.  That wasthe essence of bullet 1 in paragraph 27 of the LDC proposal.  He said the proposals in paragraph 28 of
the LDC Group submission were benchmarks and Members could discuss how they could be made
effective.  The LDC Group was aware that the Integrated Framework and JITAP existed.  His
delegation felt that Members needed to have clear benchmarks, at both the national and international
level, to ensure that the objectives were being achieved.  That was what the LDCs had been advised.It was time to discuss how those benchmarks could be improved.
85. He went on to say that his delegation had taken note of the comments made with respect to
paragraph 31 and paragraph 32 of the submission by the LDC Group.  He welcomed what the
representative of Malaysia had said.  In their proposal the LDC Group had the intention of making
known that such a policy instrument was available and he felt that it should be made available to allLDCs.  He said that with respect to the questions that had arisen regarding paragraph 34 of the LDC
Group paper, it was useful for Members to refer to the proposal made in the addendum of the paper.
It clarified why removing the contradiction might be necessary.  The representative of the
United States had emphasised the question of utilizat ion.  Utilization should be a tool that enabled
Members to see how far they would go but should not be delaying discussions on the proposals made.He said that his delegation would be pleased to look at the utilization paper once it had been
produced.  Such a utilization paper could be used to consider the proposals tabled to reach anTN/CTD/M/5
Page 28
agreement on which to modify.  His delegation appreciated the criticisms and hoped to get a response
on how Members could move forward.
86. The representative of Bulgaria said that a reference which had been made to paragraph 35 of
the Doha Ministerial Declaration, which mentioned that the aim of the work programme for small
economies was "not to create a sub-category of WTO Members."  Firstly, that paragraph had nothingto do with S&D and secondly, it refered to an objective for the work programme on small economies.
The objective there was not to create a sub-category and not to look for special rights and privileges
for set sub-categories.  Considering S&D implied that certain countries, which received that
treatment, received special privileges.  Members ne eded to know exactly who those countries were.  If
something from paragraph 35 was used which did not prohibit the creation of sub-categories but was
merely stated as a negative qualification for the objectives and implemented as a methodology, it
would not take Members anywhere.  He went on to say that he was aware that there were someMembers, probably the better-off developing countries, which were not interested in having special
rights or privileges which would apply to others but not to them.  However, that point of view was
contrary to the very purpose of the exercise.  The position of those Members was clear.  They did not
have to hide behind Paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  His delegation's position was
that if there were certain difficulties, they had to be circumscribed.  Members needed to know exactlyto whom those rights applied.  The special rights and privileges which would be created to account for
those difficulties should be given to those countries exactly.
87. The representative of Mauritius said that he wished to focus on some of the issues that the
representative of Saint Lucia had raised.  In her explanations the representative of Saint Lucia had
said that what had been tabled by her delegation was to be used as a basis of work for constructiveengagement on the part of all Members.  The delegation of Saint Lucia had made useful suggestions.
He said that the statement made by the representative of Norway was important in that it pointed out
that when favourable treatment was given to some Members, then other Members were bound to
receive less favourable treatment.  That was the essence of what differentiation was about.  When
considering the history of S&D, it was evident that at all times the dynamics of development hadcaused the Agreements to be changed.  Members began in 1947 with some elements of S&D.  The
years of 1963, 1971, 1979, 1994 had seen other elements of S&D introduced.  There had been a linear
trend and a cycle in the review of the work of the WTO because Members were living in a dynamic
world.  As the environment changed, there was a need for some Members to be taken care of.  Some
Members had requested that flexibility be provided.  He asked how flexibility was to be created in a
rules based system if the rules remained as they were.  It was often said that those rules were not to be
meddled with.  Members had to be rational about what they did and said.  The history of the WTOhad shown that at every stage Members had had to amend the basic rules that they had started with in
1947.  Members had to be sincere to themselves in realising that the environment was changing and
that some Members were being affected while others were progressing.  It was good if the system
delivered results to many.  However, at  the same time it had to be considered how it affected others.
He concluded by saying that the approach taken by the Chairman of having informal consultationswas important and Members could work together to see how they could understand each other.
88. The representative of Saint Lucia noted that it was not her delegation which had introduced a
discussion on paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration so she was not going to respond to
references to that.  She said that the LDC Group proposal had been mentioned in terms of whether the
means proposed would meet the objectives.  She said the discussions on Prebish were interesting.One school of thought had used examples of how the policies which Prebish preached could assist
large LDCs with a potential to have full diversity.  The discussion on the tools among economists was
obvious.  Getting into a large discussion on tools and means to achieve objectives would thus not
necessarily bring greater consensus in the Committ ee.  With respect to her delegations specific
Article XVIII proposal (TN/CTD/W/8)  she pointed out that paragraph 6 of that paper highlighted the
fact that when Article XVIII had been reviewed in 1955 it had been decided to give a wide meaning to
the notion of infant industry.  The last two sentences of paragraph six stated that "the notion ofTN/CTD/M/5
Page 29
establishment is given a wide meaning and covers the reconstruction of an industry destroyed or
substantially damaged as a result of hostilities or natural disasters.  It also includes the development of
new or the modification or extension of existing production structures with a view to achieving fuller
and more efficient use of resources in accordance with the priorities of their economic development".
That was why the word "interpreted" was used in bullet 2 on page 3 of her delegation's proposal tosuggest that the issue was one of interpretation versus amendment of the provision.
89. She continued by saying that it was instructive to look at the history of Article XVIII and the
comments made at the time.  Linkage had been made to Article XIX of the GATT as one of the facets,
noted in paragraph 7 on page 2, of her delegations proposal.  It was clearly seen as something which
was necessary for developing countries.  At the time of the drafting of Article XVIII and Article XIX,
it was seen as necessary that other Members would be able to take counter measures.  When looking
at the literature, in the Uruguay Round Agreement the adjustment was specifically made to address,among other things, voluntary export restraints which were proliferating.  An alternative could be to
amend Article XIX so that where there was an absolute as opposed to a relative increase in imports, a
country would not have to give compensation for an initial period of three years.  That amendment,
which was made in the Uruguay Round to address a certain phenomenon among more advanced
countries, was not introduced to Article XVIII.  Article XVIII was not a big issue at that time.  Withrespect to extending the reference to antidumping and countervailing duty measures, she referred to
the point made by John Jackson that "it becomes extremely difficult to keep the concept of fair trade
separate from those of even unfair trade".  John Jackson had noted that many foreign practices were
not unfair in the eyes of the foreign firms but that they were unfair in the eyes of other firms.  One
possible solution could be the safeguards.  John Jackson had looked at the notion that wheneconomies were structured differently, the application of WTO rules regarding contingency protection
measures had different effects. Members needed to have serious discussions on how the differences in
the application of contingency protection measures had different effects in different economies,
particularly when a Member had no ability to use it.  Her delegation welcomed an interactive debate
on the proposals that it had submitted.  She hoped that Members would have more time to focus onthe specific proposals which had been tabled by developing countries because her delegation did not
feel that Members had had sufficient time to debate all the issues.
90. The representative of the United States said that her delegation welcomed the comments made
by the representative of Mauritius.  His statement was compelling because it targeted the point that the
provisions had to be dynamic.  She reiterated that many of the S&D provisions were of "best
endeavour" nature and might be elastic enough to respond to the dynamic nature of developing
countries.  There were a number of different developing countries and the different nature of eachdeveloping country's need had become the focal point of the debate.  What was more important was
that Members could continue to work in a manner that would achieve the objective.  In that light, as
Members proceeded they needed to remain dynamic when observing the options available to them
with respect to those provisions and the proposals that had been made.
91. The Chairman said that the discussion had covered some of the agreement-specific proposals,
such as those by the delegation of Saint Lucia and the delegation of Thailand.  It had also covered
some of the systemic and institutional issues such  as those relating to the monitoring mechanism,
technical assistance and the "Enabling Clause".  There had been a number of recommendations and
suggestions to which some Members had reacted favourably while other Members, in a constructive
spirit, had responded critically.  Several delegations had urged Members to focus on the specificproposals and others had reiterated the view that a wider discussion would help that consideration.
There was a mandate to address additional ways of making S&D more effective which brought
Members into the realm of some of the institutional and systemic proposals that had been tabled.  The
Chairman believed that all of that underscored the need for intensive informal consultations.  The
Special Session was scheduled to report to the General Council on 31 July 2002 and the final meetingof the Special Session was scheduled for 17 July.  At the informal meeting of 27 June, Members had
suggested that it was prudent to have a draft report ready around 10 July.  That was a deadline that heTN/CTD/M/5
Page 30
hoped the Secretariat could meet as several days were needed to enable consultations with Members
and to finalise that report.  He emphasised the need for Members to add as much value as they could
to that report.
C. CONSIDERATION OF ELEMENTS OF A R EPORT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL
92. The Chairman said that the report should constitute two elements.  One element should be a
factual report on the submissions and the discussions that had taken place in the Special Session.  The
second element would be the way forward, including the recommendations to the General Council
and the roadmap for the period after July 2002.  He also proposed that informal consultations be held
over the following three days, and possibly one day the following week.  The Committee was at a
disadvantage because the General Council would meet on 8 and 9 July and it would be difficult to
hold consultations on those days.  However, he prom ised that informal consultations would be held.
One consultation would cover agreement-specific proposals and issues, a second would cover
institutional issues, a third would cover cross-cutting issues and a fourth consultation would cover the
way forward, including the recommendations and the roadmap.  He proposed to circulate a schedule
for those informal consultations.  He said that there might be a need to schedule further consultations
as emphasized by a number of Members.  The need to have the report ready by about 10 July wouldrequire the greatest degree of flexibility and cooperation on the part of all Members.  He said that he
was willing to make a significant effort and urged Members to cooperate.  He said that he would
circulate three pieces of paper.  The first paper would contain the elements for the proposed informal
consultations under broad headings, including the documentation to which those elements related.
The second was the possible elements of the draft report which was quite schematic containing afactual report of the submissions made, the discussions held, the way forward, recommendations, and
a roadmap.  The third paper contained the schedule for informal consultations.  The Committee was
further handicapped by organizational constraints placed on carrying out consultations and by the fact
that the Working Group on Investment also met over  the following three days.  However, if the
Committee was to have its report ready a few days before 17 July, it had no choice but to do its best toadd value to that report.  The discussion held had been useful.  A number of suggestions had been
made and the Committee had to further consider some of the various issues.
93. The representative of Japan said that, considering past informal discussions relating to the
report to the General Council, views seemed to be divided as to the elements to be put in the report,
especially on the principles and objectives together with the systemic issues.  Certain delegations
opposed the inclusion of principles and objectives of S&D.  However, those subjects had been
included in the proposal by the Africa Group and seriously discussed.  Therefore, and as the timeavailable was already limited, the Committee would have to work as practically as possible.  His
delegation had its own view of the elements that had to be included in the report to the General
Council.  His delegation would make an official submission regarding the principles and objectives of
S&D, the progress made in the Special Session of the CTD, and proposals for further study after the
July 2002 deadline.  The elements he had just mentioned were similar to what the Chairman hadsuggested.  What was different was the suggestion relating to the principles and objectives together
with the systemic issues.  He was not certain whether there was a convergence of opinions among
Members as to whether or not principles and objectives should be included.
94. The Chairman said that there was a broad heading on systemic issues and the documentation
before the Committee relating to that topic had been indicated in the brief non-paper that had been
circulated.  That brief non-paper included the documents by the African Group, the LDC Group and
other delegations.  The concerns expressed by the delegation of Japan would be taken account of
under those broad headings.
95. The representative of the European Communities said that the Chairman had proposed four
themes for consultations.  His delegation was unclear as to how they related to the report.  Only twoTN/CTD/M/5
Page 31
items had been identified for the report which were the factual account of the ongoing work and the
way forward relating to what the Special Session would do next.  He was not worried about the way
the consultations were organized or how the various issues were labelled.  He had not even heard the
words "systemic issues".  He had heard "cross-cutting issues" and was not sure whether that was a
misunderstanding.  However, what was important was that the form of the report not be prejudged.His delegation felt that there should be a clear mention in the report of the issues raised under the
heading of "Principles and Objectives".  He asked whether what was considered was the format for
the consultations and not the format of the report.
96. The Chairman said that he had referred to "cro ss-cutting issues".  What he had indicated was
the format for the consultations.  He had indicated a broad schematic outline including the factual
report on submissions and discussions in the Special Session, recommendations and the way forward.
The outline of the report would result from the process of preparing the report, based upon theconsultations and proceedings of the Special Session, including the submissions, their consideration
and the issues that had arisen in that context.  It was necessary to consider what came out of the
consultations before a clearer picture of what the report would contain would emerge, both in terms of
the factual recording of the proceedings and in terms of the recommendations and the way forward.
97. The representative of Canada noted that the factual report would include the submissions and
discussions held. She also noted that the representative of India and others had requested minutes of
the ongoing meeting.  She had understood that those reports would not be available for another week
or two.  She wished to ensure that, when delegatio ns went into the informal consultations scheduled
over the forthcoming days, they bore in mind all that had been said before so that the same views
would not have to be repeated.  It was assumed that all formal meetings had been recorded.  Inaddition, a lengthy informal meeting was to be recorded in minutes.  It was therefore important that it
was clear that those reports were going to be available to all.
98. The Chairman said that the minutes would be issued in English by the end of the following
week.  The report would, in its factual portion, reflect what had taken place in the proceedings of the
Special Session and what had been submitted to it.
99. The representative of Paraguay said that his delegation could go along with the Chairman's
proposal for possible elements for the draft report to the General Council.  The elements proposed for
discussion in the informal consultations were also acceptable.
100. The representative of Venezuela said that her delegation would go along with the elements
proposed for the report.  She asked why a division had been made between cross-cutting and
institutional issues.  If the institutional issues had been included as item (e) of paragraph 13 on page 5
of document TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.1, then their treatment had to be consistent and institutional issues
should be put with cross-cutting issues in the report as well.
101. The Chairman said that specific institutional proposals had been made and it was those that he
had in mind such as for example the monitoring mechanism.  Cross-cutting issues were viewed as
being aligned to systemic issues.  A number of such issues had been raised relating to coherence,
benchmarking and some other issues.  He recognized that there could be differences of opinion on thatbut he urged that, if it did not pose any fundamental difficulty, the Committee might accept that
methodology for organizing and carrying out the cons ultations.  The institutional proposals made in a
number of papers were quite specific while some cross-cutting, systemic issues had been raised in the
discussions and in papers submitted to the Special Session.  He urged delegations to see the issue in
that light and he hoped that it would not pose any difficulty in practice. He further stated that theCommittee would need to meet at least twice more.  It would first discuss the agreement-specific
proposals and at the second consultation it would treat the way forward.  There had already been some
discussion of the proposals and the idea was to see if it was possible to go any further than the
Committee already had.  The Committee should also discuss institutional proposals.  About three suchTN/CTD/M/5
Page 32
proposals had already been listed which had been discussed and which the Committee would take
forward, if possible, in terms of the possibility of  adding elements to the recommendations to the
General Council.  The same would be done with respect to the cross-cutting issues, of which a number
had been delineated and would be introduced at the consultations. Members were aware of some
proposals relating to coherence, bench-marking, transition periods, and technical assistance forexample.  A session would be held to try to bring things together in terms of coming up with
recommendations and in terms of a roadmap or S&D work beyond July 2002.
102. The representative of Bulgaria pointed out that a proposal had been made by the
representative of Sri Lanka that UNCTAD be asked about the information it had and the work it had
done regarding differentiation between developing countries, possibly with a view to graduation.  He
said that there had been no opposition to that proposal.  However, he had not heard anything in the
Chair's conclusion in that regard.
103. The Chairman said that a number of suggestions and recommendations had indeed been made
during the course of the discussions, some of which had received support of other delegations.  The
suggestion made by the representative of Sri Lanka, supported by the representative of Bulgaria, was
one such recommendation.  There had also been a recommendation by the representatives of Canada,
supported by Colombia on how to involve the other bodies in the ongoing work. Some differing views
had also been  expressed in that regard. The Committee could consider those recommendations as the
work progressed.
__________