RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/ 8 
 
20 December  2017 
(17-7096) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Eighth  Dedicated Session on the Monitoring Mechanism  
on Special and Differential Treatment  
   
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING O F 15 NOVEMBER  2017 
Chairman: H.E. Mr.  Taonga Mushayavanhu  (Zimbabwe ) 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ....................  1 
B. MONITORING O F SPECIAL AND DIFFER ENTIAL PROVISIONS  ................................ .. 1 
- Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ .........................  1 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 
 
 
A. ADOP TION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda as contained in  document WTO/AIR/COMTD/MMSDT/6 of 
3 November  2017 was adopted . 
B. MONITORING OF SPECIA L AND DIFFERENTIAL P ROVISIONS  
- Statement by the Chairman  
2. The Chairman  said that, at the Ninth Ministerial Conference hel d in Bali, 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 M M was to act as a foca l 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 integration of developing and least developed 
Members into the mu ltilateral trading 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 Ministerial Conference.  
3. He noted that more than three years had elapsed since the first formal meeting and , in 
this context , recalled that at the 7th Dedicated Session on the MM held on 21 June 2017, he had 
raised the issue of the review of the  Mechanism. In particular, he had brought to Members' 
attention paragraph 12 of the Decision establishing the MM, which stated that "The Mechanism 
shall be reviewed three years after its first formal meeting, and thereafter when  necessary, taking 
into acco unt its functioning and evolving circumstances ". He had also pointed out that, according 
to the Decision, the monitoring of special and differential provisions in the Mechanism was to be 
undertaken on the basis of written inputs or submissions made by Memb ers, as well as on the 
basis of reports from other WTO bodies to which submissions by Members could also be made. 
Since no written submissions had been received in the M M, he had raised the question of how 
Members would wish to proceed with the mandated re view under the circumstances. In the 
ensuing discussion, delegations had expressed differing views on the matter. Some Members 
believed that a review of the Mechanism would be useful, as it would help to identify the 
underlying issues which had led to the current situation in the Mechanism – in particular, the fact 
that it had not been tested as yet. On the other hand, other Members were of the view that the WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/ 8 
 
- 2 - 
 
  review should take place only after concrete experience had been gained in the MM. For these 
Members , it was too early to consider proceeding with the review, as no written submissions had 
yet been made.  He also recalled that he had convened an informal, open -ended meeting of the 
Dedicated Session on the MM on 6 November 2017, in order to continue the di scussion on the 
question of the review. However, the divergence in Members' positions remained essentially the 
same, and most Members had repeated the positions expressed earlier. In closing, he expressed 
his hope that delegations had had the opportunity t o reflect further on the matter, as it was 
important to come to a common understanding on how to proceed with the review.  
4. The representative of Japan  expressed disappointment with the state of play in the MM , 
and regretted that the Mechanism had not been t ested since its establishment. She noted that the 
scope of the MM extend ed to all aspects of implementation of S&D provisions, and was not  
confined to S&D provisions that were  already strengthened or operationalized. Members needed to 
base themselves on th e Decision establishing the MM , rather than on the so-called sequencing  
approach. She encouraged Members to make  written submissions , as t his would serve as a 
platform for analytical, fact -based discussions on the challenges and difficulties facing develop ing 
and least  developed Members  in their integration into the MTS. With regard to the question of the 
review of the M M, her delegation did not see the basis for a meaningful review, as the Mechanism 
had yet to be tested. Nevertheless , Japan  remained open t o suggestions by Members in 
accordance with paragraph 12  of the Decision establishing the MM , with a view to achieving a 
proper functioning of the M M. 
5. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation was disappointed that 
the MM had not be en tested , in particular because there were issues relating to S&D provisions 
that needed  to be discussed. She indicated her delegation's willingness to cooperate with any 
Member intending to make a submission in the MM . On the question of the review  of th e 
Mechanism , she indicated that it would be useful for the Mechanism to be tested before it was 
reviewed . 
6. The representative of India said that S&D provisions were an integral part of the MTS, and 
were meant to enable developing countries  and LDCs to meani ngfully integrate into the system . 
Given the concerns expressed by  some  Members regarding the effectiveness and operation of S&D 
provisions, Ministers at Doha had given the mandate , contained in paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Declaration , to review all S&D provi sions, with a view to strengthening them and making them 
more pre cise, effective and operational.  He noted that the MM was not a negotiating body, and in 
this regard underlined the importance of the sequencing of work – in particular, the need for the 
Special Session of the CTD  (CTD SS) to complete the negotiations under paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Declaration before the MM could become operational. In closing, he recalled that none of the 
proposals submitted by the G90  in the CTD  SS in 2015 had been adopted, and also made 
reference to the status of discussions on the G90 proposals presently being considered by the 
CTD SS. He believed that this situation explained why no submissions had been made in the MM.  
7. The representative of Canada  shared the disappointment  expressed by Japan and the EU 
regarding  the stat us of the MM , and encouraged Members to submit written proposals so as to 
make the MM operational. She indicated that  there was nothing in the Bali Decision establishing 
the MM  to suggest that there was a se quencing issue . She also shared her delegation's view that 
there was little sense in review ing the Mechanism  at this time , as no experience had yet been 
gained with respect to its functioning . 
8. The representative of Korea  noted the divergent views expressed  by Members on the MM, 
and suggested that the Dedicated Session on the MM suspend discussion s until either a submission 
was made to test the M echanism , or the negotiations in the CTD  SS were concluded.  He believed 
that this would avoid a repetit ion of the same arguments being presented  by delegations . 
9. The representative of Cambodia , on behalf of the LDC Group, indicated that the LDCs were 
focusing on  benefiting concretely and fully from past and future Decisions , and in this regard 
believed that the MM could be useful . He also emphasized the need for the present discussions on 
the G90 proposal s in the CTD  SS to lead to concrete outcome s. 
10. The representative of the United States  shared the sentiments expressed by Japan, the EU 
and Canada regarding the status o f the MM , and looked forward to seeing written submissions . He WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/ 8 
 
- 3 - 
 
  believed  that the analytical , fact -based  approach envisioned in the Decision establishing the MM 
held promise , and could help drive more productive and specific discussions on the implementatio n 
of S&D provisions, including the successes and challenges in utilizing them. The US did not support 
review ing the MM until written submissions  were made  and Members had some examples of how 
the MM functioned . He also expressed his concern with t he sugges tion by Korea to suspend 
meetings of the Dedicated Session on the MM , and shared h is delegation 's view that meetings 
should continue to take place  – as laid out in the Decision establishing the MM  – and that written 
submissions should be made . 
11. The represen tative of Hong Kong, China  referred to paragraph 12 of the Decision 
establishing the MM, and wondered if there  was an option for Members to decide whether  or not  to 
undertake a review of the Mechanism three years after the first formal meeting . She also no ted 
that, according to paragraph 10 of the Decision, the MM could monitor S&D provisions on the basis 
of Members' written submission s or reports received from other WTO bodies. In this regard, she 
wished to know what coordination existed with other WTO bod ies in order to obtain or encourage 
such submissions . 
12. The representative of South Africa  said that she wished to emphasize the points made by 
the African Group in past meetings . She recalled th e language contained in  paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Declaration , and highlighted  the sequencing issue. She also reminded the Committee of t he 
specific concerns raised by the African Group  on the MM , includ ing the lack of a negotiating 
mandate , and the fact that the Mechanism could not alter or in any manner affect Member s' rights 
and obligations . Furthermore, while the MM could make recommendations,  these 
recommendations c ould only inform the wor k of the relevant body, but could not define or limit its 
final determination. In closing, she believed that Members needed to cautiously find a way to 
operationali ze the MM. She also disagreed with the suggestion that meetings of  the CTD's 
Dedicated Session on the MM be suspended.  
13. The representative of the European Union  said that , while the creation of the MM was 
envisaged in the  decision taken by the General Council in July 2002, it had taken 11 years for 
Members to agree to the establishment of th e Mechanism. The African Group had explained on 
several occasions , by referring to its proposal contained in document  TN/CTD/ W/3/Rev.2 , that the 
MM was supposed to start operating once strengthened S&D disciplines were adopted. In the view 
of the African Group, the Mechanism would have no use until the strengthened disciplines were 
adopted, as there would otherwise be nothing to monitor.  Her delegation did not contest that this 
sequencing may have been what the African Group was seeking when submitting its proposal in 
2002. However, the Decision establishing the MM, which was the product of  years of  negotiations 
and an agreement reached a t the Bali Ministerial Conference, did not condition or postpone the 
start of the functioning of the Mechanism to a future point in time when strengthened S&D 
disciplines would be adopted. Referring in particular to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Decision, she 
noted  that there was no mention  of a sequencing issue.  She added that  the MM could prove useful  
and improve Members' understanding of S&D , while also complement ing discussions in the 
CTD SS. She pointed in particular to  paragraph 4 of the Decision establis hing the MM, which 
indicated that, where the review of implementation of an S&D provision identified a problem, the 
Mechanism could consider whether this resulted from implementation, or from the provision itself. 
She also noted that the  Mechanism was  equipped to make, as appropriate, recommendations to 
the relevant WTO body to consider improving the implementation of S&D provisions , or to consider 
the initiation of negotiations aiming at improving S&D provisions.   
14. Turning to the question of the re view, she  indicated that her delegation was uncertain as 
to what results could be expected , since the M echanism had never been tested . While h er 
delegation was ready to consider a review on the basis of suggestions that would increase the 
MM's use, the EU did not believe  that a review could provide a basis for suggestions that would go 
in the direction of eliminating the Mechanism or rendering it non-operational . She explained that 
such a direction was excluded from the scope of the review, since paragraph 12 of the  Decision 
establishing the MM provided for a review not only three years after the first formal meeting, but 
also thereafter when necessary.  She additionally  indicated that the MM would need to continue to 
function through the review period, and  doubted th at her delegation would be able to agree with 
the suggestion to suspend meetings of the CTD's Dedicated Session on the MM. Furthermore, as 
the scope and terms of reference agreed upon in the Bali Decision represented the minimum 
requirements to set up the MM, a review of th e Mechanism  needed to add to its scope and terms WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/ 8 
 
- 4 - 
 
  of reference. Any proposal for a review that would fall below these minimum requirements  would 
fall outside the parameters  of paragraph 12 , and would therefore not be acceptable.  
15. The repre sentative of Hong Kong, China  wondered whether the review could address the 
question of what needed to be done to allow  the MM  to fulfil its role as a focal point on S&D, in 
coordination with other WTO bodies.  
16. The Chairman  noted that divergences still per sisted on the question of the review of the 
MM. He reminded Members that a review was mandated by the Bali Decision establishing the MM, 
and in this regard called on Members to reach a common understanding  on how to proceed . In 
closing, he expressed his re adiness to continue to work with Members in order to find a way 
forward.  
17. The Committee took note  of all interventions . 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
18. No matter was raised under "Other Business".  
19. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________