RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/ 7 
 
18 October 2017 
(17-5640) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Seventh  Dedicated Session on the Monitoring Mechanism  
on Special and Differential Treatment  
   
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING O F 21 JUNE  2017 
Chairman: H.E. Mr.  Taonga Mushayavanhu  (Zimbabwe ) 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ....................  1 
B. MONITORING OF SP ECIAL AND DIFFERENTI AL PROVISIONS  ................................ .. 1 
- Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ .........................  1 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 
 
 
A. ADOPTION  OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda as contained in  document WTO/AIR/COMTD/MMSDT/5 of 9 June 2017  
was adopted . 
B. MONITORING OF SPECIA L AND DIFFERENTIAL P ROVISIONS  
- Statement by the Chairman  
2. The Chairman  said that, a t the Ninth WTO Ministerial Conference  (MC9) , Ministers decided 
to establish a Monitoring Mechanism (MM) on Special and Differential Treatment (S&D). The 
Decision was contained in document WT/MIN(13)/45 - WT/L/920. According to the Decision, the 
MM was to act as a focal point within the WTO to analy se and review the implementation of S&D 
provisions. The Mechanism operated in Dedicated Sessions of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (CTD), and was to meet at least twice a year. Six meetings of the Dedicated Session 
on the MM were , therefore , held in 2014, 2015, as well as in 2016. T he present meeting , the 
seventh Dedicated Session of the CTD on the MM on S&D , was the first meeting of 201 7. He 
recalled that, in previous meetings, an overview had been provided of the Decision establishing the 
MM, includ ing its scope, functions and operations. The Chairman  wished to take the opportunity to 
remind Members that, according to the Decision, the monitoring of S&D provisions in the 
Mechanism was to be undertaken on the basis of written inputs or submissions mad e by Members, 
as well as on the basis of reports received from other WTO bodies to which submissions by 
Members could also be made. However, no written submissions had been received to date. He 
recalled that  his predecessors had been calling on Members to make written submissions, so as to 
allow the MM to become operational. In repeating the same call, he  invited Members to make 
submissions to the MM. He also reminded Members that at the last meeting of the Dedicated 
Session o n the MM, his predecessor  had r aised the question of how Members would wish to 
proceed until a submission was made. A number of Members had shared their views on why the 
Mechanism was not being tested, and provided some possible way forward in this regard. He 
indicated that he would wel come any further thoughts on this matter at the present meeting.  
3. He went on to remind Members of Paragraph 12 of the Bali Ministerial Decision on the MM 
on S&D , which stipulate d that "The Mechanism shall be reviewed three years after its first formal 
meeti ng, and thereafter when necessary, taking into account its functioning and evolving 
circumstances." As the first formal meeting of the CTD's Dedicated Session on the MM on S&D had WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/ 7 
 
- 2 - 
 
  been held on 7 July 2014 , it was an appropriate time for Members to review t he mechanism. 
However , as no written submissions had been made to date, it might  be difficult to undertake such 
a review at this stage. He added that a fter all , a review of the working of the MM on S&D could 
only be carried out on the basis of the experien ce gain ed about its  functioning . Unfortunately , the 
Committee did not , as yet , have that experience. In light of this situation, he suggest ed that the 
Committee revert to this issue after it had  undertaken at least some substantive discussions in the 
MM on S&D on the basis of any submissions that it would receive in the future.  In closing, he 
recalled the importance of the Decision establishing th e MM for the multilateral trading system, 
and for the work of the CTD , and expressed his hope that this year,  Members would engage  in 
substantive discussion on this matter so as to make full use of the Mechanism and take advantage 
of the opportunities that it offered.  
4. The representative of Uganda , on behalf of the African Group , stated  that S&D provisions 
formed  an integral part of the multilateral trading system  (MTS). He said that t he ultimate goal of 
S&D was to enable developing countries and LDCs to meaningfully integrate into the MTS. 
However, in most cases, the nature of these provisions had made it difficult to effective ly utilize 
and implement  them. He briefly recalled the history underlying the establishment of the MM, in the 
submission by the African Group of a compilation of several S&D provisions - TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 
of 17 July 2002, with a view to making th em more precise, effective and operational , in line  with 
Paragraph  44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration; and the proposition by the Group to establish a 
MM whose original objective would be  to monitor the already strengthened S&D provisions. Hence, 
the M M was intended to be established after the S&D provisions had been strengthened , pursuant 
to the Doha Mandate. He additionally drew Members' attention to the fact that since the launch of 
negotiations on the MM, the African Group had been suggest ing that in the context of the MM , only 
those S&D provisions that had been reviewed and made more precise and effective, in line with 
the Ministerial mandate, should be reviewed. T he Mechanism should also be allowed to make 
consensual recommendations on either impro ving the implementation of the S&D provisions or 
strengthening them. Speaking about the  current situation characterized by the lack of progress in 
the negotiations in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
(CTD SS) - pursuant to Para graph 44 of Doha Declaration - as well as the lack of submissions in 
the MM, h e said that talking  about operationalizing the MM was like putting the ca rt before the 
horse.  This sequencing issue needed  to be kept in mind.    
5. He went on to note that , in fact,  the Mechanism had no negotiating mandate . In his view, 
the MM could  make recommendations, which would only inform the work of the relevant body, but 
it could not define or limit the final determination  of this body . While the MM  was supposed to be a 
focal point to analyse and review the implementation of S&D provisions, it could  not prevent 
Members from availing themselves of other relevant review mechanism or processes in other 
WTO's bodies. Against this background, he said that despite the African Group' s openness and 
commitment to make the MM operational, the primary concern remained that the  Mechanism 
would only be  a listening post. Hence, nothing meaningful could ever emerge out of it. In the 
African Group 's view, the mandates of the MM and the CTD SS  were entirely separate, though 
these two fora should be mutually supportive and interdependent. In closing, he said that for the 
African Group, the Mechanism would not likely work as expected, unless its scope, functions, 
terms of reference and operation w ere re -examined.  
6. The representative of Nigeria  supported the statement delivered by Uganda on behalf of 
the African Group. He concurred with the Chair man that the major challenge in reviewing the 
Mechanism was the absence of experience with the functioning  of the MM . He went on to highlight  
two other important challenges associated with the review of the MM , i.e. the  fact that any 
discussion in the CTD Dedicated Session on the MM had to be undertaken on the basis of inputs or 
written submissions by Members,  and the fact that the MM itself was expected to make 
recommendations that should aim to further improve and strengthen S&D provisions as 
appropriate.  
7. The representative of the United States  indicated that her delegation was not surprised 
that after investing so much in successfully negotiating the MM, no submission was made by 
Members to trigger the operationalization of the MM. She attributed this situation to the fact that 
during the negotiations, some Members had expressed doubts about the existence of  significant 
challenges in Members’ utilization of S&D provisions. Hence, lack of submissions did nothing more 
than presenting the Membership with a good story . She reiterated the US' belief that the analytical 
approach envisioned in the Decision establish ing the MM still held promise and could help drive WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/ 7 
 
- 3 - 
 
  more productive and specific discussions on the implementation of existing S&D provisions, 
including the successes and challenges in utilizing them.  
8. The representative of Japan  stated  that the analytical w ork under the MM could serve as a 
first step to address difficulties that developing Members  faced , including through negotiations at 
the CTD SS . He additionally noted that the coverage of the MM extend ed to all S&D provisions 
contained in the WTO Agreemen ts. Therefore, he encouraged Members that faced difficulties in 
implementing S&D provisions , to depart from the sequencing issue and test the Mechanism 
through written submissions. He then turned to  the issue relating to the review of the MM, and 
expressed  support for the Chairman's proposition that such a review might be meaningless in the 
absence of experience gained about the functioning of the MM.  
9. The representative of Cameroon  said that the minutes of the previous meetings of the 
Dedicated Session of t he CTD on the MM had clearly show n that developed Members on the one 
hand and , developing Members on the other , had different understanding s of the mandate of the 
MM. In clarify ing the ACP Group's position, he stated that  the MM was created before the S&D 
provisions could be  strengthened  in the CTD SS . The sequencing was very important. Indeed, the 
MM was originally expected to review the implementation of S&D provisions, which could have 
been previously strengthened. In other words, it was for the CTD SS  to strengthen S&D provisions 
and make them more precise and operational in order to allow the MM to become operational, i.e., 
by being able to review those S&D provisions whose implementation was fraught with difficulties. 
In considering the issue of the re view of the MM, he suggested that Members consider two options . 
First, even though the MM had not functioned, it should be possible to assess it, including by 
examining the underlying problem s of its non -functioning. Second, Members could opt for 
reviewing  the Mechanism once written submissions would be made, but the submission(s) could 
only be made once the S&D provisions had been  strengthened and when the beneficiaries would 
have experienced difficulties in utilizing some of them.     
10. The representative of  Canada  said that the MM represented an outcome of tough 
negotiations that had taken  into account Members' interest s. Members should abide by the 
Decision that establish ed the MM . She recalled that according to the terms of the Decision , the 
Mechanism would extend to all S&D provisions contained in WTO Agreements, as well as in 
Ministerial and General Council Decisions. Supporting the Chairman's suggestion to review the 
Mechanism after at least some substantive discussion ha d taken place  in the MM , on the b asis of  
written submission s, she urged Members to table written submissions  at the earliest so as to test 
the Mechanism.  
11. The representative of Cameroon , once again,  took the floor and said that  the MM had no  
negotiating mandate. Its monitoring function on ly relied on Members' submissions , which in turn, 
depend ed on the fulfilment of the mandate of Paragraph 44 of Doha Declaration to make S&D 
provisions more precise, effective and operational. Accordingly , unless the CTD SS  fulfilled its 
mandate , it would b e un likely that the monitoring function of the MM would be come  
operationalized.       
12. The representative of Uganda  said that Members had probably di fferent interpretations of 
the terms of r eference of the MM . In his view, if the MM had no negotiating mandat e, it could not 
alter or amend Members' rights and obligations . If that was the case, then it was i nconceivable  
that the S&D provisions could ever become precise, effective and operational.  He went on to say 
that the Chairman should allow the process of re viewing the MM to take place , as recommended 
by Paragraph 12 of the Bali Ministeria l Decision establishing this  Mechanism.  He added that the 
clarity of Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration was far beyond that of the MM. As a result, it 
would only be Paragr aph 44 of the Doha Declaration – and not the MM - that would help Members 
find sufficient ground s of agreement on S&D provisions. In closing, he indicated that he was not 
requesting a reinterpretation of the Decision establishing the MM, but rather he wante d to request 
that the Chairman allow the review process of the MM to take place . 
13. The representative of Nigeria  noted that his colleague from Uganda raised a fundamental 
question concerning the review of the Mechanism. He requested Members to further reflec t on the 
meaning of Paragraph 12 of the Decision establishing the MM .  WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/ 7 
 
- 4 - 
 
  14. The representative of the European Union  went along the lines of the views expressed by 
the representative of Canada , and argued that Members should respect the terms of the Decision 
establishing the MM. In her view, the three year time-period prescribed by the Decision for 
undertak ing the review of the MM had not yet elapsed. Therefore , it would be too early to discuss 
such a review, in particular because  by the time of the next meeting  of the CTD Dedicated Session 
on the MM , there might be written submission(s) , which could allow substantive discussion  to take 
place.  In closing, she said that for the time being, the EU was not in a position to take a decision 
on the review of the Mechan ism. 
15. The representative of Cameroon  supported the EU's view that the terms of the Decision 
establishing the MM should be fully respected, including by carrying out the review of the 
Mechanism  three years after its first formal meeting. However, in contrast  with the EU, he believed 
that it was time for the Committee to undertake this review because six meetings of the CTD 
Dedicated Session on the MM had already taken place. He concluded by emphasizing that Members 
must respect the terms of the Decision.  
16. The Chairman  explained that the purpose of his statement was to draw Members' attention 
to the fact that the time for reviewing the Mechanism had come and, as no submissions had thus 
far been made to trigger the operationalization of the MM, it would be diffic ult to undertake such a 
review. He took note of different views expressed by Members and indicated his intention to 
undertake informal consultations on this issue so as to establish a common understanding on how 
to proceed.   
17. The Committee took note  of all statements made . 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
18. No matter was raised under "Other Business".  
19. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________