RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/19  
 
11 December  2023 
(23-8422) Page:  1/5 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Nineteenth Dedicated Session on the Monitoring 
Mechanism on Special and Differential Treatment    
 
  
NOTE ON THE MEETING  OF 17 NOVEMBER  2023  
Chairman : H.E. Dr. José R. Sánchez -Fung (Dominican Republic)  
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ...................  1 
2. MONITORING  OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL PROVISIONS  ................................ . 1 
A. Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ ......................  1 
3. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
 
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA   
1. The Chairman  said that the proposed agenda for the 1 9th Dedicated Session on the Monitoring 
Mechanism  (MM) on Special and Differential Treatment (S&D) of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (CTD) was contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/COMTD/MMSDT/17/Rev.1  of 
7 November  2023. He noted that this Airgram had  been prepared in line with the new measures that 
were being implemented to improve the functioning of the CTD. Among other things, the Airgram 
contained a simpler and more straightforward numbering system for agenda items. It also contained 
a hyperlink to  access the annotated draft agenda which had been prepared for the present meeting, 
and which had been circulated in document JOB/COMTD/ MMSDT /1. At the 122nd Regular Session of 
the CTD which would be held later in the day, he would be saying mo re about these and other 
measures that were being implemented to improve the functioning of the Committee.  
2. The agenda was adopted .  
2. MONITORING  OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL PROVISIONS  
A. Statement by the Chairman  
3. The Chairman  said that, at the Ninth WTO Ministerial Conference (MC9) held in Bali in 
December 2013, Ministers decided to establish the Monitoring Mechanism (MM) on Special and 
Differential Treatment (S&D) . The Decision establishing the MM was contained in document 
WT/MIN(13)/45  – WT/L/920 . According to the Decision, the MM was to act as a focal point within 
the WTO to analyse and review the implementation of S&D provisions. The Mechanism was to review 
all aspects of implementation of S&D provisions with a view to facilitating the integr ation of 
developing and least developed Members into the multilateral trading system  (MTS) . The Mechanism 
operated in Dedicated Sessions of the CTD. The present meeting was the 19th Dedicated Session on 
the MM, and it appeared that the situation remained unchanged from the last meeting, which was 
held in July 2023. For one thing, the monitoring of special and differential provisions in the 
Mechanism was to be undertaken on the basis o f written inputs or submissions made by Members, 
as well as on the basis of reports from other WTO bodies to which submissions by Members could 
also be made. However, as Members were well aware, no written submissions had yet been made 
in the MM. Furthermo re, paragraph 12 of the Decision establishing the MM stated that "The 
Mechanism shall be reviewed three years after its first formal meeting, and thereafter as necessary, 
taking into account its functioning and evolving circumstances". This review had stil l not taken place. 
As had been previously highlighted, delegations had expressed different perspectives on the question 
of the review. He wished to take this opportunity to urge Members to come to a common WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/19  
 
- 2 - 
 
  understanding on how to move forward with the Moni toring Mechanism. As he had said before, if it 
was felt that informal discussions facilitated by the Chairperson could help Members come to this 
common understanding, he would be happy to organize such discussions.   
4. The representative of Pakistan  delivered  the following statement:  
5. Let us rewind by two decades to reali ze why we agree d to the establishment of th e MM in the 
first place , and then contemplate on why things have not changed for most developing countries 
and least developed countries ( LDCs) during  this period. The S&D provisions within the WTO were 
introduced with the understanding that they play a pivotal role in fostering equitable and inclusive 
global trade by recognizing the unique challenges faced by developing countries and LDCs . These 
provis ions acknowledge the varying levels of development among Members  and aim to provide 
tailored measures that allow developing countries and LDCs the flexibility needed to integrate into 
the MTS. T he MM was  established in accordance with the Bali Ministerial Decision to review 
S&D provisions in all aspects of implementation , with a view to facilitat ing the integration of 
developing countries and LDCs into the MTS. H owever, it has always encountered challenges in 
achieving its intended objectives. Despite the mandate calling for a review three years after its 
inaugural meeting, we find ourselves without any significant progress. We believe  there is a  need 
for a comprehensive rev iew of the Mechanism to identify the root causes of its limited effectiveness  
– be it in the form of its mandate , its terms of reference  (TORs) , or its operations for improving the 
efficacy of th e initiative. At our last meeting , Norway proposed to develop  a model submission 
template that can be worked out with the help of the Secretariat. We believe this to be a useful 
solution. We have used similar approach es in other Committees and working groups on food security , 
where Members developed a questionnaire last year after the Twelfth WTO Ministerial Conference 
(MC12 ) to identify the needs and challenges faced by LDCs and net food -importing developing 
countries (NFIDCs). We believe that this can be a constructive way to move our work forward in this 
Committee . 
6. The representative of Norway  delivered the following statement:  
7. I would like to thank Pakistan  and also reiterate th e concrete suggestion that Norway made  
at the last meeting. It is very unfortunate that th e MM has not been used according to its mandate. 
It is a lost opportunity for informed discussion s on trade and development within an agreed 
framework. The ongoing process in the Special Session of the CTD  (CTD SS)  – regarding the 
G90 Agreement Specific Proposals (ASPs) on the Agreement on the A pplication of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement ) and the Agreement on T echnical Barriers to Trade 
(TBT Agreement ) – shows that it could be helpful to use the MM to shed light on some of the 
S&D provisions in these two Agreement s. This would include information on how they work for 
Members , with the aim of moving the process forward. A review could therefore be useful. It would 
also be helpful to try to have a  concrete template or a format that co uld work for Member s. 
8. The representative of India delivered the following statement:  
9. The MM was created as per the 2013 Ministerial mandate for the review of S&D provisions. 
The Mechanism was to complement, and not replace, other relevant mechanisms or processes in 
other bodies of the WTO. Today  is the 19th meeting of the MM, and we know that the Mechanism 
has not worked. The Mechanism was to be reviewed three years after its first formal meeting, which 
was held in July 2014. Therefore, the  Mechanism should have been reviewed after July 2017. Th at 
did not  happen. Members  should review the MM to figure out why it has not worked, and then report 
to the General Council for further deliberation, as is considered appropriate. In my delegation's view, 
this would require  an assessment of what the MM could do , and the  difference between the mandate 
of the MM and that of the CTD . We should assess h ow the MM 's mandate is superior to that of the 
CTD, given that t he CTD  already has a  mandate to review of  S&D provisions. Members need to be 
clear on how the MM's mandate  could be made superior  – or is already  superior  – to 
the CTD's  mandate, including as a focal point. Members  should  assess if there are concerns with the 
mandate  of the MM, its TORs, or its general design  and report back to Ministers at the Thirteenth 
WTO Ministerial Conference (MC13) . While we propose a review of the Mechanism, we are not 
suggesting  abandoning the Mec hanism . The purpose of the review would be to assess in what 
manner the MM  could be utilized for the purpose of strengthening S&D provisions , and whether there 
is a need to change its TORs – for example, to clearly delineate its role from that of the CTD . For 
this purpose, direction  can be sought  from the General Council and Ministers , as necessary . WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/19  
 
- 3 - 
 
  10. The representative of  the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
11. The European Union believes that the use of the MM would be helpful  and would complement 
the discussions taking place in the CTD SS . A review could help in that direction. The European Union 
would be interested to participat e in it, which could contribute t o refining some language. This is 
because some Members say that th e Mechanism has  not worked or has a problem with its 
functioning . I would say that it has not been used. There are some nuances that we could perhaps 
usefully look a t. I have to give further  thought to the idea of reviewing the Mechanism now. I would 
also very much like to hear comments  from the members of the G90 on this. I heard Pakistan and 
India, but since I see a link with the work of the CTD SS  – and not just the CTD  – it would be 
interesting to hear from the G90 , and in particular the LDCs .  
12. The representative of  the United States  delivered the following statement:  
13. The United States is very clear in maintain ing that we do not support the review of a 
Mechanism that has never been used. As we have said previously, we can only draw the conclusion 
that a lack of submissions suggests th at Members are not yet able to articulate their problems in 
utilizing existing S&D provisions. The MM was established as a focal point within the WTO to analyse 
and review the implementation of S&D provisions. We continue to believe in the analytical, 
fact-based approach that the M M requires. According to  this approach, a Member needs to describe 
the specific problem s it is having in utilizing a specific S&D provision. This approach , which entails 
an analytical and focus-based analysis , can help drive more productive and specific discussion s on 
the implementation of existing S&D provisions  – including the successes and challenges that remain 
in utilizing them. We continue to believe that Members  should at least give it a try and use the MM. 
A country that is  having difficulties can come forward with its specific challenge s, and possible 
options for solutions  can be discussed . The United States has no objection to the Chair holding 
consultations on the MM. We look forward to revamping this debate . 
14. The represen tative of  India delivered the following statement:  
15. This is a brief intervention regarding the Ministerial mandate to review the Mechanism. In the 
minutes of the first meeting of the MM , it was clearly mentioned that the Mechanism would be 
reviewed three years after that meeting. However, we see that there are interpretations being 
imposed by Members on the review, even though the Ministerial directions are very clear. Members 
and the Ch air need to consider  what exactly is the mandate from Ministers , including with regard to 
the review of the Mechanism . 
16. The representative of  Brazil  delivered the following statement:  
17. The proposal made by Norway is interesting in the sense that we can work together with the 
SPS and TBT Committees. We had a good meeting a few weeks ago on the S&D provisions in the 
SPS and TBT Agreements . G90 members describe d the practical problems  they face with SPS 
measures, and possible solutions. I think it is a good start. I appreciate your suggestion to hold 
informal discussions . My delegation will be ready to engage . 
18. The representative of  Fiji delivered the following statement:  
19. I note that Members support having  the MM in place. There are perhaps practical approaches 
that could be taken , but delegations need to understand the background. Small delegations in 
particular are not able to cover all areas of work in the CTD . It may be useful if the Secretariat could 
prepare  an overview  of what has been discussed in the context of the MM, including the proposals 
that have been made and the measures that have been taken. Such a n overview could potentially 
help Members in mapping a  workable  way forward.  
20. The representative of  South Africa  delivered the following statement:  
21. I speak on behalf of South Africa , and not the G90 . My delegation  share s the view, as already 
expressed by others , that the MM has not been optimally used – if it has been used at all – and that 
there could still be valu e in it. The idea of undertaking an assessment or reflection of why it has not 
worked c ould be explored . However , we would like to reiterate that we do not view the Mechanism 
as an alternative avenue to the negotiation s taking place in  the CTD SS . The mand ate of the CTD  SS WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/19  
 
- 4 - 
 
  is to r eview and negotiat e S&D provisions with a view to strengthening them and making them more 
precise, effective and operational. The MM can at best  play a complementary role . There is no 
agreement or common understanding of what the purpose or role of the MM  is. A good place to  start 
discussions among Members may be on what the MM is mandated to do.  
22. The representative of  Nigeria  delivered the following statement:  
23. I would like to echo the statement by South Africa. I would also like to share my thoughts on 
some of the comments t hat have been made today. Some Members appear to have the view that, 
until the MM is operationalized, there will be no clarity on the kinds of difficulties countries face in 
utilizing S&D provisions.  This seems to be an attempt to weaken the mandate of the CTD SS . If 
there is no clarity, then what is being negotiated in the CTD SS ? The representative from South  Africa 
has made the point that the mandate of the CTD SS  is clear and distinct . It is pursuant to th is 
mandate t hat the G90 tabled its ASPs. While Members consider ways to operationalize the MM,  it 
will be important to not undermine the mandate of the CTD SS.   
24. The representative of  Ecuador  delivered the following statement:  
25. Ecuador considers the Committee's discussions on this issue to be highly relevant. In this 
context, we support having  discussions on the SPS and TBT Agreements with a view to obtaining 
specific input s that may be useful for reaching a common understanding on the MM. Market access 
for the  exports  of developing countries and LDCs  – a substantial majority of which are agricultural 
products – is important for the growth and development of these countries , in particular as they are 
sensitive to the SPS and TBT m easures applied by their trading partners. We believe that discussions  
could better reflect the concerns and priorities of developing countries and LDCs , so that the MM will 
allow for a more effective and practical application of S&D based on the issues  identified. A better 
understanding of Members' realities is needed  in order to make S&D a more precise, effective and 
operational tool . Informal consultations  organized by the Chair could be useful in moving th e 
discussions  forward.  
26. The representative of  Egypt  delivered the following statement:  
27. Today is the CTD's 19th Dedicated Session on the MM on S&D, and yet  the discussions sound 
like Members are negotiating something new. However, the idea of the MM came from the African 
Group in 2002 . I agree with South Africa and Nigeria that we should not mix the mandate of the MM 
with that of the CTD SS. The  MM's mandate is found in the Bali Ministerial Decision which established 
the Mechanism . Ministers decided on the scope  and the TORs. T hey were clear when they said that 
the Mechanism will complement  and not replace other relevant review mechanisms or processes in 
other bodies . Here, I believe they were referring to the CTD SS and its mandate . The Decision goes 
on to say that the MM shall review all aspects of implementation  of S&D  provisions . Members 
therefore need to assess the implementation of S&D provi sions and see to what extent these 
provisions  are relevant or fit for purpose. There should be a start to this. I  suggest this start should 
come from the Secretariat's document on the implementation of S&D  provisions . Where there is a 
lack of implementatio n, Members can then react in line with  the mandate of the Mechanism. The 
Decision further states that the M echanism will not alter, or in any manner affect,  Members ' rights 
and obligations under the WTO Agreements. The scope of the Mechanism is therefore very limited 
compared to the CTD SS. The MM is to focus on the implementation of existing S&D provisions , to 
see whether they are functional  and fit for purpose . According to the Decision, the monitoring of 
S&D provisi ons in the Mechanism shall be undertaken on the basis of written inputs or submissions 
made by Members. In this regard, a  lot of submissions  and proposals  concerning S&D provisions  
have bee n made . Since the Mechanism is the focal point within the WTO to an alyse and review the 
implementation of S&D provisions, it may be necessary to prepare a compilation for the MM of the 
various ideas and proposals. Let us start doing our job in the MM in the way that it was mandated, 
without having to affect the mandates of other bodies. Although n egotiations taking place in other 
bodies can reconsider the balance of rights and obligations,  this is not something that can be done 
in the MM. We don 't have to mix things up . 
28. The representative of  the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
29. I would like to thank the delegations that have shown an interest in this topic. 
The European  Union considers it unfortunate that the Mechanism is not being used . We would WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/19  
 
- 5 - 
 
  welcome dev eloping countries drawing a benefit and use from it. I would like to clarify that when I 
mentioned other  bodies, it was not to suggest that one body is superior to the other, that one can 
replace the other, or that the mandates should be confused. I think "complementarity" is an 
important word. We do no t need distrust  when  a Member wants  to try to make something work . 
There is no hidden agenda . 
30. The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
31. Japan is encouraged to hear the intervention s of the previous speaker s, especially the very 
useful  intervention  by Egyp t. I think that the Mechanism should be operationalized, and that 
Members  should look at the language contained  in the Decision establishing the Mechanism. 
As regards  the scope of the Mechanism, the Decision provides that the coverage shall extend to all 
S&D provisions contained in multilateral WTO Agreements, Ministerial and General Council Decisions. 
Regarding the operation of the Mechanism, the Decision states that the Mechanism shall operate in 
Dedicated Sessions of the CTD. In accordance with this Decision, the discussion at today's  meeting 
has been  very useful . 
32. The representative of  the Bolivarian Republic of V enezuela  delivered the following statement:  
33. I would li ke to support  the statements which highlighted  the importance of not mixing  the 
mandates of various WTO bodies. It will be  important to discuss in greater depth how to fulfil the 
specific mandate of the MM.  
34. The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
35. I would like to pick up from what the representative of the European Union said. There is no 
hidden agenda on the United States ' side either. In the  same  spirit as the debate taking place in the 
CTD SS, w e remain open to  engage in a frank dialogue that is based on Members ' specific  needs. As 
long as Members can  have this fact -based, precise , open and cooperative approach  to the 
discussions , we are in it with you all . 
36. The representative of Nigeria  delivered the following statement:  
37. I thank the European Union and the United States for their interventions . It is welcome to 
note that there is no hidden  agenda. The representative of  Egypt talked about submissions made to 
other bodies, which may shed light on the reasons why some S&D provisions have not been utilized 
by developing countries. I would like to seek the guidance of the Chair. I f the Chair is agreeable, the 
Secretariat cou ld be requested to make a compilation of these submissions, which c an be used to 
advance the work in the MM.  
38. The Chairman  noted that some proposals had been made to  take forward the discussions in 
the MM. He indicated that he would be contacting delegatio ns on this matter to see how progress  
could be made . 
39. The Committee took note  of all interventions.  
3. OTHER  BUSINESS  
40. No matter was raised under "Other Business".  
41. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________