RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/9  
 
3 September  2018 
(18-5471) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Ninth Dedicated Session on the Monitoring Mechanism  
on Special and Differential Treatment  
   
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING O F 5 JULY  2018 
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Diego Aulestia (Ecuador)  
 
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/7 of 7 June 2018 
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, 
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 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 inte gration of 
developing and least developed Members into the multilateral 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. Noting that the present meeting was the Committee's Ninth  Dedicated Session on the MM, 
he shared his view that Members needed to address some realities regardi ng the status of work in 
this body. 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, no 
written submissions ha d yet been made in the MM. Furthermore, 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". He recalled that the issue of the review had been previously raised with Members , 
and delegations had expressed different perspectives on the matter, in particular in light of the 
fact that no written submissions had been made. Some were of  the view that Members should 
proceed with the review, while others felt that a review should only take place after concrete 
experience had been gained.  The present situation in the MM was therefore one in which there 
were no written submissions on table, and the way forward with regard to the mandated review of WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/9  
 
- 2 - 
 
  the Mechanism remained unclear. While it would be necessary for written submissions to be made 
in order for a discussion on substance to take place, he also believed that there was a need to find 
a common understanding  on how to proceed with the review . With these issues in mind, he 
indicated his intention  to hold informal consultations with Members after the summer break, with a 
view to finding a way forward on the M M. He hoped that , by the time of the next meeting of the 
MM, there would be some tangible progress that would allow Members  to have a better idea on the 
way forward.  
4. The representative of South Africa , on behalf of the African Group, said that the Group 
reiterated its longstanding convic tion that S&D provisions were an integral part of the MTS. The 
idea that development meant either trade liberalization, or that all countries at all levels of 
development should have similar trade policies and apply trade rules in the same way, ran against  
the lessons of the economic history of development. She r eferred Members to the G90 submission 
contained in document JOB/TNC/65  for more information on the African Group's perspectives. This 
context was  also relevant against the backdrop of paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration, which mandated Members to review all S&D provisions with a view to strengthening 
them and making them more precise, effective and operational. The African Group's submission 
contained in document TN/CTD/W/3 /Rev.2 of 17 July 2002  not only compil ed several provisions for 
review under paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration , but also proposed the establishment of a 
monitoring body, envisaged to monitor the already strengthened S&D provisions. It therefore 
followed  that the sequencing that had been envisaged was for the MM be established after the S&D 
provisions had been strengthened pursuant to the Doha mandate . Furthermore, t he African Group 
had believed that the establishment of the MM at MC9 was consistent with the logic and promise  at 
the time  that at the Tenth WTO Ministerial Conference (MC10) , Members would finally deliver 
positive results on the G90 S&D proposals that were on the negotiating table, in accordance with 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration. Howe ver, there had been no progress in the work of the 
Special Session of the CTD (CTD SS) pursuant to paragraph 44 , and there had also been no 
submission s in the MM. She believed that this dilemma was easily explained by the sequencing 
issue,  and the nature o f the MM itself. In particular, t he MM had no negotiating mandate, and 
could not define or limit the final determination of the recommendations it made to other bodies.  
5. She went on to say that the African Group remained open-minded and commit ted to 
making  the MM work . The Group was curious but cautious about  how the Mechanism would 
execut e its mandate  beyond being a listening post. The Group was also conscious about the 
mandates of the MM and the CTD SS, and believed that there was a need to develop 
comple mentary and collaborative approaches between these two  distinct but mutually supportive 
and interdependent fora. In closing, she expressed concern regarding  the implementation of 
decisions and mandates, particularly on issues of priority interest to develo ping countries and least 
developed countries ( LDCs). She urged Members to deliver on the mandate in paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Declaration, as the  MM would only be effective  once this was achieved . The African Group 
remained willing to collaborate with Membe rs in order to  address the scope, functions, terms of 
reference and operation of the MM. In this regard, the Group had no objections to the Chairman's 
approach to convene informal consultations.   
6. The representative of Nigeria  expressed support for the intervention  by South Africa. He 
stressed the importance of the mandate in paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration , and also noted 
that no submissions had been made by Members in the MM. Although the review of the Mechanism  
was overdue , the challenge the Committee need ed to address was how to review a Mechanism 
that had not been tested . Furthermore, there were some concerns with respect to the scope, the 
function s, the terms of reference, and the operation of the Mechanism. He indicated his 
delegation's  willingness to engage with other Members  to find a way forward , and welcomed  the 
Chairman's intention to hold informal consultations.  
7. The representative of Bangladesh  said that there was as yet no outcome from the 
negotiations taking place in the CTD SS , and this made it unclear what Members could expect from 
the MM. He also believed that Members needed to discuss the purpose and objective of the review  
of the MM  during the informal consultations convened by the Chairman.  
8. The representative of the United States  said that no Member had made  a written 
submission to the MM  citing a concern with the implementation or utilization of an S&D provision . 
It therefore seemed reasonable to conclude that Members were not having problems utilizing S&D WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/9  
 
- 3 - 
 
  provisions. Although Members were free to consult with the Chair man as they saw fit, his 
delegation did not support the Chairman's call for specific  consultations on th e MM.    
9. The representative of the European Union  said that, while the creation of the MM was 
envisaged i n the decision taken by the General Council in July 2002, it had taken 11 years for 
Members to agree to the establishment of the 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 mon itor. 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 reac hed at 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 complementing discussions in the 
CTD SS. She pointed in particular to paragraph 4 of the Decision est ablishing 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.1 
10.  She additionally expressed regret that no written submission s had been made to test the 
MM, and indicated her delegation's openness to engage with other Members . In that respect , the 
European Union  viewed positively  the Chairman's intention to hold informal consultations.  
11. The representative of Benin  supported the intervention  by South Africa. He noted that, in 
spite of the mandate in paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration, it had thus far not been possible to 
make S&D provisions operational. This explained the lack of written  submissions in the MM. In 
particular, Members were unable to present their difficulties in the implementation of S&D 
provisions , since these provisions had never been implemented . Until the time  that these 
provisions became operational, he did not see how  it would  be possible to have an effective and 
functional MM. In this light, he called on Members to follow up on the G90 proposals  that were 
submitted in the CTD SS.  
12. The representative of Canada  said that her delegation's perspective on the MM had not 
change d since the last meeting . Her delegation did not share the view that the purpose of the MM 
was to monitor outcomes from the CTD SS. Such an interpretation would significantly reduce the 
scope of the Mechanism, and its value to Members . In Canada 's view, the Mechanism  applied to all 
S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements, Ministerial and General Council Decisions. In closing, she  
encouraged Members to make written submissions to the MM so that it could be operationalized . 
13. The representative of Benin  said that the African Group was not aiming to limit the scope 
of the MM. However, since the work of the C TD SS was expected to feed into  the functioning of the 
Mechanism , it was unclear what could be discussed in the MM  at the present time. He explained in 
this regard that S&D provisions had not yet been made operational , and u ntil this was done, he did 
not see how Members would be in a position to make written submissions to the MM to outline any  
difficulties they faced  in implementing particular provisions .  
14. The representative of Nigeria  indicated  that the MM's mandate with respect to the 
recommendations it could make needed to be explored , as he believed this was linked to the 
question of why the Mechanism had not been  operationalized through written submissions . If the 
MM was not functioning, his view was that a review needed to be undertaken in order to determine 
how the Mechanism could be operationalize d. Recalling that discussion  could also take place on the 
basis o f reports from other WTO bodies to which submissions by Members could be made , he 
suggested that such reports might  serve as a basis for the review . Members also needed  to take 
into account the evolving circumstances mentioned in paragraph 12 of the Decision establishing 
                                                
1 The points in this paragraph, made by the European Union at the Eighth  Dedicated Session on the MM 
on S&D, are reflected in the minutes of this meeting at the re quest of the delegation of the European Union.  WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/9  
 
- 4 - 
 
  the MM.  Although he believed that there was a valid link between the work of the CTD SS and the 
MM, he did not feel that such a link limit ed the scope of the Mechanism. He also suggested that a 
further Decision from Ministers might he lp provide guidance on a way forward for the MM. In 
closing, he expressed support for the Chairman's intention  to hold informal consultations, and 
called on Members to be open -minded and flexible  in their discussions .  
15. The representative of Japan  expressed  disappointment with the state of play in the MM, 
and regretted that the Mechanism had not been tested since its establishment. His delegation was 
open to address the question of the review of the Mechanism , and  to the Chairman's intention to 
hold informal  consultations. He stressed the need for a clear purpose and an appropriate modality 
for a meaningful review , otherwise  discussions on  the review would end up being a repetition of 
Members' positions. He encouraged Members to make  written submissions in order to test the 
Mechanism , since he believed that written sub missions would form the most meaningful  basis for a 
review. Finally, he indicated that the Mechanism had the mandate to review to all aspects of 
implementation of S&D pr ovisions, pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Decision establi shing the MM. 
He also believed that it was necessary for Members to be open -minded in discussing the way 
forward for the MM, while acknowledging current realities and evolving circumstances.  
16. The rep resentative of Côte d'Ivoire  expressed support for the intervention  by South Africa, 
as well as for the Chairman's intention to hold informal consultations . The view of his delegation 
was that the MM needed to  be implemented. In this regard, he encouraged Members to make 
written submissions . He also noted that t he scope of the M M was broad . Even if in the short term a 
solution was not found regarding the mandate in paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration, the 
Mechanism  could still be operational ized, and could  make recommendations in this regard .  
17. The Chairman  reiterated his intention to hold informal consultations after the summer 
break. These consultations would aim to help Members come to a common understanding on the 
issue of the review and the way forward concerning the M M. 
18. The Committee took note  of all interventions . 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
19. No matter was raised under "Other Business".  
20. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________