RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/10  
 
10 January  2019 
(19-0177) Page:  1/4 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Tenth Dedicated Session on the Monitoring Mechanism  
on Special and Differential Treatment  
  
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING O F 21 NOVEMBER  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/8 of 
24 October  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 WT O 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 multilateral trading sy stem (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 Ministeria l Conference.  
3. He noted that the present meeting was the Committee's Tenth Dedicated Session on the 
MM. As he had done at the Ninth Dedicated Session , he once again wished to share his view that 
Members needed to address some realities regarding 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 fro m other 
WTO bodies to which submissions by Members could also be made. However, no written 
submissions had 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, at the Ninth Dedicated Session , he had highlighted the different perspectives of 
Members on the question of  the revie w, in particular in light of the fact that no written submissions 
had been made. Some Members believed that the Committee should proceed with the review, 
while others felt that a review should only take place after concrete experience 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 added  that he would do what he could  to WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/10  
 
- 2 - 
 
  help Members find a way forward . In this regard, he indicated his intention to continue his informal 
discussions with delegations. He also indicated that Members should feel free to contact him to 
discuss  any issues they wished relating to the MM.  
4. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that she support ed the suggestion made by 
the Chairman at the last meeting  for an informal meeting  to be held to explo re ideas on the way 
forward . She explained  that it was a systemic concern that a Ministerial  Decision taken five years 
ago had not been implemented . This undermined the credibil ity of the WTO. She  also observed 
that all Members had seen the merits of establishin g the MM at Bali, and Ministers'  wisdom was 
reflected in the wording of the Decision. Members now still had the task of implementing the 
Decision. Beyond the various posit ions and views expressed in the past few years , she believed 
that there was still room for meaningful steps , which could take into account Members ' concerns. 
She encourage d Members to make written submissions, and to continue exploring new and 
constructive  approaches to take forward the work in the Dedicated Session on the MM . 
5. The representative of Norway  referred to the mandate for the MM, and noted that it had 
the potential to structure discussions on development in a clearly positive way. The document 
explicitly mandated the review of all aspects of implementation of S&D provisions with a view to 
facilitating integration of developing and least  developed Members into the MTS. He saw this as an 
important task, which he believed all Members s hould be able to agree on. Norway stood  ready to 
cooperate constructively to revitalize the MM . An informal session to discuss how this could be 
done seem ed like a good idea.   
6. The representative of the United States  indicated  that she wished to take the op portunity 
to reiterate her delegation's view s with respect to the MM. She said that the MM was established 
as a focal point within the WTO to analyse and review the implementation of S&D provisions . It 
was created to analyse the application of S&D provisio ns in order to drive more productive and 
specific discussions on the ir operation and possible shortfalls. Her delegation  continued to believe 
that the sort of analytical fact -based approach envisioned in the Decision establishing the MM held 
promise and could help drive more productive and specific discussions on the implementation of 
existing S&D provisions, including the success es and challenges in utilizing them. The 
United States did not support reviewing the MM before Members had e xamples  of how it 
functioned. Written submissions by Members were required in this regard . Finally, she said that , 
while Members were free to  consult with the Chair man as they saw fit , her delegation did not 
support specific consultations on the MM . 
7. The representative of Nigeria  noted that the Decision establishing th e MM had been taken 
by Ministers, and regretted that it had so far not been im plemented. While observing  that progress 
in the MM might not be  possible without written submissions, he believed that other creative 
options  could nevertheless be explored . He expressed openness  to explore all possible ways 
forward, and  in this regard indicated that his delegation had no objections for informal 
consultations to be held . 
8. The representative of South Africa  said that she wished to reiterate three points that her 
delegation had previously raised with regard to the MM. She firstly expressed her delegation's 
longstanding conviction that S&D provisions were an integral part of the MTS . The MM was a focal 
point to analyse and review the implementation of S&D provisions. As her second point, she 
recalled that her delegation had pr eviously raised concerns with regard to  the absence of proposals  
in the MM , which resulted from the lack of progress in the negotiations taking place in the  Special 
Session of the CTD (CTD SS) , pursuant to paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration . She believed that 
this dilemma was easily explained by the sequencing issue, and the nature of the MM itself. In 
particular, the MM had no negotiating mandate, and could not define or limit the final 
determination of the recommendations it made to other bodies. She indicated as her third point 
that the mandates of the MM and the CTD SS needed to be kept separate. In closing , she 
supported the call for informal consultations.  
9. 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 the Mechanism. The African Group had explained on 
several occasions, by referring to its proposal contained in docum ent 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 WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/10  
 
- 3 - 
 
  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 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 o f 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 t he Decision establishing 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 th e 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 expre ssed regret that there were still  no written submissions  in the MM , 
and called on Members to consider whether they had issues that they wished to raise within the 
mandate of the M echanism .   
11. The representative of the United States  said that , in her delegation's view, it was not 
possible to undertake a review of the MM at the present time, since no written submissions had 
been made . She also observed that the absence of written submissions could suggest  that 
Members were not having difficult ies in utilizing S&D provisions. In this light, it was unclear why 
informal consultations by the Chairman were necessary, since there were no written submissions 
citing  any concerns with the implementation or utili zation of any S &D provision.  She asked if the 
Chairman could provide clarity on this point.  
12. The representative of Nigeria  believed that it was incorrect to assume that a lack of written 
submissions on the part of the proponents was an indicat ion that they were not experiencing  
difficulties  in utili zing S&D provisions. He explained that there were many issues surrounding the 
MM and the question of  the review  of the Mechanism , and it was also difficult to separate some of 
these issues  from the work of the CTD SS. In this regard, he agreed with the dele gation of 
South  Africa on the need to delink the mandates of the MM and the CTD SS, even if there w as 
some connection  between the two  processes . He went on to say that it was the responsibility of all 
Members to fulfil a Ministerial mandate. Although  the assumption  might be that the proponents 
bore a greater responsibility in this regard, he observed that some legitimate concerns had been 
raised by the proponents which had not been adequately addressed . With regard to the review of 
the MM, he noted that it could also take place on the basis of reports received from other WTO 
bodies, but no such reports had been received as yet.  He additionally stressed the importance of 
informal consultations  to allow Members to explore ways forward , and indicated that h is delegation 
was open to any ideas in this regard, including in the context  of any possible report by the  
Secretariat for Members ' consider ation. In closing, he called on Members to work together to find a 
creative solution to overcome the present impasse .  
13. The representative of Guatemala  regretted that the MM had not been operationalized , and 
expressed support for the idea of holding an informal session  in order to allow Members to discuss 
the way forward . She also indicated  that it was the prerogative of a Chairperson of a WTO body to 
be able to hold informal consultations with Members . This was a systemic issue, and a  prerogative  
that needed to be protected . 
14. The representative of China  observed that the implementation of the MM w as related to 
the credibility of Ministerial Decisions, and of the WTO. He hoped that a creative and constructive 
way forward could be found . China had no objection s to the Chairman holding informa l 
consultations on the MM .  
15. The representative of the United States  said that one of the best  ways to address the issue 
of assumptions would be to have a written proposal , on the basis of which Members could work to 
explore the MM. That exercise would in itself be analytical and factual. In addition, while Members 
                                                
1 The points in this paragraph, made by the European Union at the Eighth  Dedicated Session on the MM 
on S&D, and also reflected in the minutes of the Ninth Dedicated Session, are reflected once again in the 
minutes of this meeting at the request of the delegation of the Europe an Union.  WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/10  
 
- 4 - 
 
  were free to consult with the Chair man as they saw fit, her delegation did not support the call for 
an informal or open -ended meeting on this matter.   
16.  The Chairman  observed  that there was an important divergence of views among Members 
with regard to the MM. Noting the calls from some delegations for an informal meeting on the MM, 
and for informal consultations to be held , he shared his view that the Chairperson of a Committee 
had the right and the duty to consult with Members in order to try and bring positions closer.  While 
he did not believe that the Committee was ready for an informal, open -ended meeting, h e 
indicated his intention to talk informally with M embers, including in bilateral and small -group 
settings . This represented a minimum first step to try to bring positions closer.  He urged Members 
to show flexibility, and clarified  that it was not the intention for his informal consultations to 
replace d iscussions in the Committee .  
17. The Com mittee took note  of all interventions  made . 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
18. No matter was raised under "Other Business".  
19. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
 
__________