TN/CTD/33  
 
7 May 2018 
(18-2799) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Special Session    
 
 REPORT BY THE CHAIRP ERSON OF THE COMMITT EE ON TRADE AND DEVE LOPMENT IN 
SPECIAL SESSION, AMB ASSADOR TAN YEE WOAN  (SINGAPORE),  
TO THE TRADE NEGOTIA TIONS COMMITTEE  
_______________  
 
 
1.1.  I am making this report as Chairperson of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (Special Session) on the work undertaken in the Committee so far this year . The 
report is factual and is being made under my responsibility.  
1.2.   Members wi ll recall that despite our best efforts and constructive engagement in Geneva in 
2017, we could not bridge fun damental differences on the G90' s 10 Agreement -specific proposals 
before leaving for Buenos Aires. At MC11, Ministers had an opportunity to engage  in frank, open -
ended discussions, held over two sessions, on broader trade and development issues under the 
Facilitator, Foreign Minister of Norway Ine Eriksen Søreide. Although no specific outcome was 
reached, a number of ideas and suggestions were made,  including calls for fresh approaches that 
Members felt could help make progress.  
1.3.   At a subsequent informal Ministerial gathering, held in Delhi in March this year, there was 
significant discussion on the issue of development and special and differential treatment  (S&D) . In 
my view, the Delhi meeting had built on the MC11 Facilitator -led discussions, and eleva ted the 
discussion on development.  
1.4.   Against this backdrop, and in order to restart discussions in Geneva, I sent a fax to Members 
on 22 March 2018 in forming them of my intention to begin a process of informal consultations. 
Fifty-two delegations signalled their interest . In the end , about 40 delegations showed up over the 
course of the three small -group informal consultation meetings I held from 9 to 1 1 April. In these 
consultations I sought Members ' views on three guiding questions which I had earlier sent to 
Members.  
1. What were Members' main take -aways from the Ministerial discussion on trade and 
development in Buenos Aires?  
2. What were their suggestions on how we could take forward the work in the Special 
Session?  
3. What were their views on the broader trade and development discussion, and how it 
could bear on work in the Special Session?  
 
1.5.   During the informal consultations, I had recalled t he Facilitator 's assessment at MC11 that a 
fresh look was required to break the deadlock and take things forward; and that alternative 
approaches should be adopted with the specific objective of finding ways and means of making 
progress on the G90 proposal s.  
1.6.  Each of the three small -group discussions had its own dynamics. Overall, the discussions 
were useful. Although the respective positions of Members remained divergent and basically 
unchanged from the past, I found that the engagement, frankness and open -mindedness 
demonstrated in the consultations was at a higher level than I had observed in the past two years.  
1.7.   Several points e merged from these consultations:  TN/CTD/33  
 
- 2 - 
 
   There was a general recognition among Members that development is central to the WTO’s 
work and  that S&D is integral to it, though views continue to differ on ho w best to achieve 
development.  
 
 On the question of whether or not to engage in a broader trade and development 
discussion, some Members believed that it would be useful. Other Members diffe red with 
this view and felt that such a discussion would not be helpful. Yet there were other 
Members who expressed willingness to go along with whatever could gain consensus. In 
any case there seemed to be a general sense that if any such discussion shoul d be held, it 
should not be at the Special Session whose work should remain focused and aimed at 
achieving concrete S&D outcomes.  
 
 Many cautioned against a "one -size-fits-all" approach to S&D. However, the contexts in 
which this was said were vastly differ ent. On the one hand, to some Members it meant 
that S&D could not be applied in a "one -size-fits-all" manner for a heterogeneous group of 
self-declared developing countries, which now also included, among them, major players in 
global trade. On the other h and, for some Members it meant that as developing country 
Members had differ ent levels of capacities , a "one-size-fits-all" set of rules would not work 
and appropriate S&D responding to specific needs would have to be tailored.  
 
 Some believed that the dis cussions on the G90 proposals had been exhausted and that it 
would not be advisable to continue doing what Members had been unproductively doing fo r 
the past 16 years. Some others continued to stress the importance of resuming work on 
the basis of the G90 S&D proposals in line with paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration. 
Having said this, I also detected a cautious willingness to look at fresh approaches being 
proposed an d of what that could comprise.  
 
 There was a view expressed that developing a common understanding on the mandat e 
would help achieve progress. H owever, some others reminded that this was something 
which Members had attempted on several occasions, but had failed.   
 
 Throughout the discussions, repeated calls, by some Members, were made for exploring 
more creative and constructive approaches (including, among others, case -by-case 
approach, case studies, country -specific issue -based approach, possible opt -outs etc.) with 
the aim  of putting the Special Session' s work on a more workable, realist ic and 
result -oriented track. If any such fresh approach should be embarked upon, it should be 
with the understanding that it w as without prejudice to Members'  respective positions on 
this portfolio.  
 
 From the suggestions which have been made thus far in respect of possible fresh 
approaches, I discerned the following two broad groups of ideas that I believe could 
benefit from further exploration:  
 
a) To consider a methodology of work at the Special Session based on a case 
study approach.  
b) To consider suggestio ns aimed at addressing the basic concern of 
heterogeneity amongst the group of developing countries, such as by looking 
at S&D provisions on a case -by-case basis including a possible voluntary 
opt-out by some developing countries from some provisions.  
 
 Views differed on how these ideas could translate into concrete progress in the Special 
Session. The calls for case studies and case -by-case assessments entailed that the 
requesting Member(s) present specific cases backed by the relevant evidence and facts in  
order for the Membership to assess the merits of either the proposals for improving on the 
current S&D provisions, or to support developing Members’ invocation of S&D.   
 
 The dissenting views which were expressed inclu ded that the premise of the WTO' s S&D  
regime was for general application to all developing country Members and this right to 
claim or forego a particular S&D provision could not be challenged. It was for each 
developing country Member to decide which particular S&D provision it wished to bene fit 
from or to forego its right in doing so. No developing country Member could be forced to 
make a particular choice.  TN/CTD/33  
 
- 3 - 
 
   
 Concerns were also expressed that what was being suggested would be tantamount to 
seeking a waiver which, in their opinion, was cumbers ome, time consuming, unnecessarily 
invasive and  difficult to pursue. They also felt such an approach would put developing 
country Members under unnecessary scrutiny and force them to prove their otherwise 
evident development needs.  
 
1.8.  The richness of the discussions prompted me to pose a number of additional questions for 
Members to reflect upon:  
 How does the envisaged case study methodology of work differ from what the G90 had 
been doing in providing examples in the detailed elaborations on the 10 S&D pro posals in 
the run up to MC11?  
 
 Since the case study methodology would require facts, data and other kinds of detailed 
preparation and engagement, will there be Members who would volunteer to be the 
subject of such case studies?  
  
Here, I should report tha t several ideas had been flagged, including (i) that a 
country -specific issue -based approach could benefit from the concrete examples that 
might be available in the Trade Policy Review (TPR) knowledge base ; (ii) that the dispute 
settlement jurisp rudence co uld be another source;  and (iii) that lessons could be learnt 
from the work and experience of  other intergovernmental organiz ations such as the World 
Bank, the IMF and other WTO Committees' work on development.   
 In respect of the  suggestions aimed at addr essing concerns over the heterogeneity of the 
group of developing country Members, the question is that while there could possibly be 
scope for creative S&D to be negotiated in future WTO trade rules, how could the 
suggestions for according S&D on a case -by-case basis and voluntary opt -out basis apply 
to current WTO trade rules? In the latter case, what could be the possible 
modalities/options that would allow such an approach to be considered?  
1.9.  In order to share the results of these consultations with the wider Membership, I convened 
an informa l open-ended meeting of the Special Session on 23 April 2018. Though it was primarily 
a transparency exercise, I encouraged Members to share additional views that they might have. 
Several delegations took the floor to  basically reaffirm the views they had earlier expressed in the 
small -group s' consultations.  
1.10.   Members of the G90 and some other developing countries reiterated the need for WTO rules 
to be development -friendly. They stressed that the rules must facilitate an increase in the 
beneficiaries ’ trade capacity and share in global market. They also called for focusing the Special 
Session 's work on the S&D proposals in line with paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration and in this 
context on the need to develop an under standing of the mandate.  
1.11.   Some Members expressed their willingness to follow any methodology, including the holding 
of a broader debate on trade and development in workshops/symposia outside the  Special 
Session .  
1.12.   There were some who rejected a case-by-case approach as a possible modality of work and 
voiced strong views against any discussion on differentiation in the context of Special Session .  
1.13.   Views were also expressed that in the run up to MC11, the proponents had provided 
concrete examples, requisite da ta and rationale of each proposal. The y questioned as to how this 
was any different from case study, case-by-case or issue -by-issue approach.  
1.14.   While recognizing that development was central to WTO, some other Members said that 
development did not mean that two thirds of the M embership should be excluded from the 
fundamental disciplines of the multilaterally agreed rules. They believed that the G90 proposals 
would not be conducive to a positive result on trade led developmen t.  
 TN/CTD/33  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.15.   In their view, a succession of S&D proposals in the past 16 years had not resulted in 
meeting of minds. Members had exhausted discussions on them . There was hardly any usefulness 
in continuing with the way of work that Members had been doing in the pa st.  
1.16.   Some Members advocated the need for exploring fresh approaches in the quest for 
identifying concrete solutions to the underlying issues.  
1.17.   Some felt that at this stage a broader discussion on trade and development was warranted. 
They generally agreed t hat it could take place outside the purview of the Special Session .   
1.18.   More generally , the speakers shared the view that development and S&D were key 
components of WTO rules. The discussion revealed that a diversity of perspectives remained on 
the relations hip between trade rules and development, the rationale of S&D, the usefulness of a 
broader trade and development debate and on ideas such as  case study,  case-by-case or issue 
specific approaches. In addition, there remains a dichotomy of views between Memb ers that want 
to restart the Special Session's work on the basis of the G90 proposals and those who continue to 
oppose this way of working.  
1.19.   I intend to soon begin another round of consultations in variable geometry that would focus 
on some of the points hi ghlighted in my report and that in  my view need further exploration. In 
the meanwhile, I remain available should Members wish to share any ideas that can help us move 
forward in our work.  
1.20.   This concludes my report.  
 
 
__________