RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/11  
 
9 September  2019 
(19-5775) Page:  1/4 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Eleventh Dedicated Session on the Monitoring Mechanism  
on Special and Differential Treatment  
   
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING O F 28 JUNE 2019  
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Chad Blackman (Barbados)  
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ...................  1 
B. MONITORING OF SPECIA L AND DIFFERENTIAL P ROVISIONS  ................................ . 1 
- Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ ........................  1 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1. The draft agenda as contained in document WTO/AIR/COMTD/MMSDT/9 of 29 May 2019 was 
adopted . 
B. MONITORING OF SPECIA L AND DIFFERENTIAL P ROVISIONS  
- Statement by the Chairman  
2. The Chairman  said that, at the Ninth WTO Ministerial Conference (MC9) held in Bali, Mi nisters 
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 withi n the WTO to analy ze 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 integration of developing and least developed Members 
into the multilateral tr ading system (MTS). The Mechanism operated in Dedicated Sessions of the 
Committee on Trade and Development (CTD), and was to meet at least twice a year. Accordingly, 
two meetings of the Dedicated Session on the MM had been held every year since the Bali Mi nisterial 
Conference. The present meeting was the Committee's 11th Dedicated Session on the MM.  
3. He went on to say that there were some realities regarding the status of work in the MM 
that Members needed to address. For one thing, the monitoring of S&D provisions in the Mechanism 
was to be undertaken on the basis of 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. Furthermore, paragraph 12 of the Decision est ablishing 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". However, different perspectives had been 
expressed on th e question of the review, in particular in light of the fact that no written submissions 
had been made. One perspective was that Members should proceed with the review, while another 
perspective was that a review should only take place after concrete exper ience had been gained. He 
urged Members to come to a common understanding on how to proceed with the review, and more 
generally on how to move forward with the MM. He also mentioned that, towards the end of 2018, 
his predecessor in the Chair had been appro ached by two delegations – the delegations of Norway 
and Hong Kong, China – with a request to facilitate informal discussions in small -group settings. The WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/11  
 
- 2 - 
 
  purpose was to allow these two delegations to share some of their ideas with other Members on 
ways to  trigger the operationalization of the MM. At their request, his predecessor had facilitated a 
number of small -group meetings on this subject in the early part of 2019. He indicated that he 
similarly wished to do what he could to help Members find a way fo rward for the MM. In this regard, 
he said that he would be reaching out to delegations informally, and that Members should also feel 
free to contact him to discuss any issues they wished relating to the MM, including any ideas they 
might have to advance th e work.   
4. The representative of Norway  indicated that Members needed to work together to 
operationalize the MM. He recalled that, at the 108th Regular Session of the CTD, some delegations 
had raised the issue of the MM during the discussion concerning the Secretariat report on the 
implementation of S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements and Decisions, as contained in document 
WT/COMTD/W/239. On the basis of this report, his delegation had encouraged Members to reflect 
on whether they had input in any format w hich could be useful for discussion in, and 
recommendations from, the MM. He emphasized the importance of the mandate of the MM, which 
was to review all aspects of implementation of S&D provisions, with a view to facilitating the 
integration of developing and least  developed Members into the MTS. He believed that the mandate 
should be of interest to all Members – whether they were of the opinion that existing provisions and 
their implementation were insufficient, or whether they were among those that asked for concrete 
examples when faced with arguments for more flexibility in existing rules. The fact that the MM had 
not been utilized was a lost opportunity for informed and pragmatic discussions on trade and 
development, within an agreed and clear framework.  He noted that some Members were of the view 
that the lack of written submissions in the MM suggested that no improvements in S&D provisions 
were needed. He indicated, however, that capacity issues might also be a reason for the MM not 
having been utilized , as it could be challenging to make a first submission to an unused Mechanism, 
without recourse to any previous practice. This was  why efforts had been made by Norway and Hong 
Kong, China to explore the possibilities of drafting a template, which could be  used on a voluntary 
basis, and which could simplify the preparation of a written submission. The intention was not to 
introduce an additional debate on whether a template should be used for written submissions in the 
MM, and how it should be constructed. Accordingly, no proposal had been circulated. While the MM 
had no formal requirements for the format of submissions, the example of a template could be of 
inspiration to any Member thinking of making a submission.       
5. The representative of Hong Kong, Chi na said that the MM was established as a forum for 
monitoring S&D issues, with the objective of improving the ability of beneficiaries  to utilize the 
provisions. When adopted at MC9, the Mechanism was seen as an important step in the 
responsiveness of the MTS to the concerns of developing Members. Yet, after ten meetings of the 
CTD's Dedicated Session on the MM – and more than five years  since the establishment  of the 
Mechanism  – there had been no written submissions to put the MM into operation. She noted that a 
Ministerial Decision that was reached after a decade of discussions had not been implemented, and 
the absence of written input s was undermining the credibility of the WTO. Of the more  than 150  
S&D provisions, and not counting those already being discussed in other WTO bodies, there were 
still many provisions to be reviewed. She believed that Members should focus on two aspects of t he 
Decision establishing the MM  - firstly, on how the provision was being applied, and secondly on the 
overall effectiveness of implementation. With some factual information prepared by the Secretariat, 
the Committee could then discuss and consider whether  there were problems arising from 
implementation or from the provision itself, and make recommendations  where appropriate.  The 
Mechanism could refer such considerations to the relevant WTO body to explore the problem and 
discuss a solution. While the statu s of recommendations from the Mechanism would be reported to 
the General Council, it was up to the relevant body to consider the recommendations. She noted 
that the Bali Decision contained little description about a written submission, which meant that the re 
was full flexibility in respect of the format and content. A written submission could simply be a small 
paragraph about a Member's experience in using a specific S&D provision. To facilitate work in this 
regard, Norway and Hong Kong, China had drawn up an example, in the form of a template, as an 
attempt to show how a written input could be put forward and reviewed in the MM. This was not a 
proposal, and there was no need to agree on any template, as it was just an attempt to encourage 
the preparation of  a written submission. She looked forward to providing further explanations after 
the meeting to interested Members. In closing, she said that the sharing of experiences in the MM 
on the utilization of S&D was a crucial step to enable understanding and bui ld trust among Members, 
which would help discussions on the important issue of development. She encouraged Members to 
take the step to try out the Mechanism and benefit from it.  WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/11  
 
- 3 - 
 
  6. The representative of Japan  expressed appreciation to Norway and Hong Kong, Ch ina for 
their initiative. Her delegation was of the view that it was unfortunate, and a lost opportunity, that 
the Mechanism had so far not been utilized. She appreciated that it might be difficult to test the 
Mechanism through a written submission, since there were no procedures or format that could be 
referred to. In that respect, she believed that the template suggested by Norway and 
Hong Kong, China was a good starting point, which could be modified as necessary in the future. 
She noted the importance o f taking a first step to utilize the MM, and indicated her delegation's 
willingness to engage with any Member that wished to give it a try.  
7. The representative of The Gambia , on behalf of the LDC Group, noted that there were 
divergent views among Members on  how the MM should operate, and called on the Chairman to 
pursue consultations, in various configurations, with the objective of facilitating a solution. He 
believed that one of the explanations for the current situation in the MM related to confusion abou t 
the approach to take. It was a matter of being clear about the prerogatives and functioning 
modalities of the MM, notably vis-à-vis those of the Special Session of the CTD (CTD SS). The LDC 
Group considered it essential that some decisions on S&D were taken in favour of LDCs, as part of 
the negotiations in the CTD SS. This would facilitate the functioning of the MM, once agreement was  
reached in the CTD SS. The agreed proposals would form part of the monitoring function of the MM. 
In closing, he expressed the LDC Group's readiness to engage in any configuration that the Chairman 
found useful.  
8. The representative of Colombia  believed  that it was important to operationalize the MM in 
order to make the best use of S&D provisions. She said that the Secretariat report on the 
implementation of S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements and Decisions – contained in document 
WT/COMTD/W/239 – provided a detailed and comprehensive overview of the various S&D provisions , 
and could be used as a tool to implement the mandate to review aspects of the implementation of 
S&D provisions. She welcomed the initiative taken by Norway and Hong  Kong,  China to propose  a 
template, which could serve as a guide for preparing submissions on the implementation of certain 
S&D provisions or how to optimize their use. Her delegation did not believe that the lack of written 
submissions in the MM could be interpreted to mean tha t there was no room for improvement in 
S&D provisions. The view of her delegation was that a voluntary format such as the one developed 
by Norway and Hong Kong, China could help give Members a sense of how to present a specific 
case. The format could be ta ilored to the subject matter, and to the experiences and needs of the 
Members that made the submission, thereby allowing them to take advantage of the considerable 
flexibility provided in the mandate of the MM. Her delegation was open to working with inter ested 
Members and the Chairman on ways to move forward with the MM.  
9. The representative of the United States  said that the MM was established as a focal point 
within the WTO to analy ze and review the implementation of S&D provisions. It was created to  
analy ze the application of S&D provisions in order to drive more productive and specific discussions 
on their operation and possible shortfalls. Her delegation continued to believe that the sort of 
analytical fact -based approach envisioned and set out in the De cision establishing the MM held 
promise and could help drive some productive and specific discussions on the implementation of 
existing S&D provisions, including the successes and challenges in utilizing them. She observed that 
no Member had made a written  submission to the MM in order to cite a concern with the 
implementation or utilization of an S&D provision. Moreover, no  Member had come to the 
United  States indicating a concern with implementation, or with making a submission to the MM. It 
therefore see med reasonable to conclude that Members were not having problems in utilizing the 
S&D provisions, nor having difficulty in making a submission.  
10. The representative of the European Union  said that the MM was to function on the basis of 
written submissions, a nd expressed regret that the Mechanism had still not been operationalized. 
She called on Members to consider tabling a written submission, so that the Committee could finally 
start the discussions that were intended for the MM.  
11. The representative of Russia n Federation  said that while the creation of the MM was originally 
envisioned in the decision by the General Council in 2002, it had taken 11 years to adopt the 
Ministerial Decision establishing the Mechanism. It was a systemic concern for his delegation t hat 
the Ministerial Decision had still not been implemented. Not only had Members been unable to 
operationalize the MM, they had also not been able to carry out the mandated review of the 
Mechanism three years after the first formal meeting. He indicated t hat his delegation had monitored 
all the meetings of the CTD's Dedicated Session on the MM, and that he had counted his intervention WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/11  
 
- 4 - 
 
  at the present meeting as being the 100th intervention made in the Dedicated Session. However, in 
spite of all these interv entions, Members were still unable to find a way forward for the MM. He 
underlined the usefulness of the Secretariat report on the implementation of S&D provisions in the 
WTO Agreements and Decisions, as contained in document WT/COMTD/W/239 , and indicated that 
his delegation would welcome any initiative to help find a way out of the current impasse and build 
some mutual trust.   
12. The Chairman  urged Members to come to a common understanding on the way forward  for 
the MM . He reiterated that he would be reachin g out informally to Members to discuss matters 
relating to the Mechanism , and that delegations should also feel free to contact him on these issues.      
13. The Committee took note  of all interventions.  
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
14. No matter was raised under "Other Business".  
15. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________