TN/CTD/32  
 
27 November 2017  
(17-6482) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Special Ses sion    
 
 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 Commit tee on Trade and 
Development (Special Session) on the work undertaken during 2017. The report is factual and is 
being made under my responsibility.  
1.2.  I will not repeat most of what had already been presented in my last report to the Informal 
TNC and HODs mee ting on 24 October 2017, and which was subsequently circulated in document 
JOB/GC/145. The main focus of today’s report is on the Special Session’s work since my October 
report.   
1.3.   Members will recall that in July 2017 the G90 tabled textual proposals on ten special and 
differential treatment (S&D) provisions (JOB/DEV/48 -JOB/TNC/60). These proposals were formally 
introduced at the formal meeting on 19 July 2017. Thereafter, the Special Session was reconvened 
nine times and many of these sessions, as appropr iate, were converted into informal open -ended 
format to allow for open and frank discussion on the proposals. In addition, discussion also 
proceeded in bilateral and plurilateral consultations involving Members in different configurations.  
1.4.   Thus far the Sp ecial Session has completed two rounds of substantive readings of the 
proposals.  
1.5.   The first reading of the proposals undertaken at the two meetings held in September this 
year witnessed substantive engagement. Though positions remained deeply divergent, Me mbers 
posed questions and sought clarifications from the proponents with a view to better understand ing 
the concerns they had with the existing WTO provisions in addressing the challenges they faced. 
The written comments and questions posed by Members were  circulated to all Members by the 
Secretariat so as to facilitate meaningful discussion on the proposals and, in particular, for the 
proponents to come back with appropriate responses.  
1.6.   In my efforts to develop a clear work plan in the lead up to MC11 and  with the objective of 
identifying potential landing zones, I undertook a series of informal consultations with the 
objective of seeking Members' guidance on three points.  
1.7.   First, how Members saw the work in Special Session proceed in the remaining time to  MC11 
and whether they had any suggestions that could help harvest tangible outcomes? Second, what 
alternative approaches could be explored to ensure meaningful progress in the Special Session's 
work? Third, did Members sense or identify any areas of conve rgence? In addition , whether they 
had flexibility for any one or more proposals? If yes, which proposal(s)?  
1.8.   These consultations were constructive and witnessed a frank exchange of views. However 
they did not yield a clear road map identifying a landing zo ne for the Special Session’s work ahead. 
Fundamental differences and wide gaps in positions remained as detailed in my report of 
24 October.  TN/CTD/32  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.9.   At the two reconvened meetings of the Special Session in October , the G90 replied to the 
questions/clarifications  on the proposals.  
1.10.   The Special Session continued working on the issues before it in the five further meetings 
held on 9, 14, 16, 20 and 23 November. It concluded its second substantive round of discussion on 
the proposals at its meeting on 16 November.  
1.11.   Overall, there has been a varied level  of engagement on the various proposals during the 
two rounds of substantive readings. Where there has been engagement, it has helped Membe rs 
better understand each other' s viewpoints. For some other proposals, in partic ular the 
industrialization cluster comprising the three proposals relating to the Agreement on TRIMS, GATT 
Article XVIII A and C, and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the level of 
engagement fell short of what the proponents thought they deserved. One Member repeatedly 
stated that it would not engage on the basis of the current approach a nd the proposals on the 
table.  
1.12.   Regardless of the level of engagement, my assessment of where we stand was that the 
fundamental differences in positio ns remain deep and wide, and Members were no closer to 
bridging these differences. The proponents continued to maintain that the requested flexibilities 
were needed for fostering industrialization, promoting diversification and facilitating structural 
transformation in their economies. On the other hand, some Members contended that agreeing to 
these flexibilities would give a wrong signal that multilateral trade rules did not foster 
development. Any solutions to the issues raised in the proposals must be re alistic, based on facts, 
and that deviations from rules should only be considered in exceptional circumstances and for only 
those who really need them. T he differences with respect to "differentiation"  also remained.  
1.13.   With no clarity on the way forward and with the objective of facilitating an honest 
assessment on where we stood in our work and to solicit Members ' views on the way forward, I 
had posed the following questions to Members: (i) what should we do to make progress in the 
remaining time available? (ii) what do we see ourselves, and our Ministers doing on this dossier in 
Buenos Aires? and (iii) how can we better prepare ourselves for Buenos Aires?  
1.14.   In response to my questions, the proponents indicated that they wanted work in the 
Special  Session to b e carried on towards a potential outcome on S&D at MC11. They also wanted 
Ministers to actively engage on these proposals in Buenos Aires. They strongly believed that 
ministerial engagement would allow for a constructive ministerial discussion on how devel oping 
Members, in particular LDCs, could be better integrated into the multilateral trading system . Some 
non-proponents shared the proponents'  views to continue efforts to find landing zone for MC11.  
1.15.   On the other side of the fence were some Members who fel t that the discussion on the 
proposals had reached its limit and any further work on the same proposals or subsequent 
revisions to them, would, at best, be a repetition of what had already been flagged. Given the 
paucity of time and the charged dynamics in  the run up to MC11, it would only deteriorate the 
quality of discussion and lead us nowhere. They viewed that transmitting "unripe"  proposals to 
Buenos Aires for ministerial engagement was not the right course of action. Some Members were 
of the view that  convergence on these proposals would not be possible either at MC11, or even 
thereafter. Some Members were prepared to continue discussion even though they did not believe 
convergence would be possible on the basis of the current approach and proposals.  
1.16.   At the Special Session meeting held on 20 November 2017, while wrapping up the 
discussion, I indicated to Members that I would hold informal consultations to achieve clarity on 
the way forward. These consultations were held on 22 November 2017. The G90 reit erated the 
importance of Ministers engaging in a discussion at Buenos Aires on S&D issues, which the 
Special  Session had been discussing for a long time at the technical level with little results to -date. 
They expressed a strong view that any discussion by  Ministers should be based on the ten 
proposals that Members had been discussing since September this year. They also stressed that 
the G90 proposals must be accorded the same treatment as that which would be accorded to other 
proposals/issues on the table  across the house.  
1.17.   An equally strong view held by some other Members was that if at all ministerial 
engagement was necessary, it might be more constructive for Ministers to discuss broader political TN/CTD/32  
 
- 3 - 
 
  trade and development issues instead of the ten proposals . Some were against the Special Session 
convening in Buenos Aires. One Member, in particular, was also categorically against the 
Specia l Session transmitting the proposals to MC11  for Ministers'  consideration. It was however 
also acknowledged that it was t he prerogative of any Member to table any matter for consideration 
at the Ministerial Conference.  
1.18.   Although my consultations on 22 November 2017 proved useful in generating a deeper 
discussion of the three process -related questions that I had posed, there were no clear answers to 
any of them. There was broad agreement that what Members were trying to grapple with were 
important issues. Members continued to stick to previous positions reflecting wide differences in 
perceptions on how these issues could best be tackled and appropriate solutions could be found. 
However, I did not hear any Member objecting to a discussion by Ministers at Buenos Aires on 
development issues.  
1.19.   The Special Session reconvened on 23 November 2017 at which I provided a factual report 
of the work undertaken in the Special Session along the above lines, and in particular on the 
informal consultations held on 22 November on the process -related issues in the r emaining days 
to, and at MC11.  
1.20.   After I had presented my report, the G90 said that t hey intended to submit the ten 
proposals to Ministers for their action at MC11. Several Members of the G90 intervened and 
highlighted their concerns and perceived imbalances in the multilateral trade rules and hence the 
need for revised S&D, particularly f or the weaker Members. In  recounting how in the last 16 years 
they had come down from 88 original S&D proposals, to 25 in 2015, and then only to 10 in 2017, 
they said they were disappointed at the lack of interest by some Members to address the concerns 
and challenges that developing countries and the LDCs faced in their efforts to better integrate into 
the multilateral trading system.  
1.21.   The G90 members also said that the re was a disconnect between what the Ministers had 
mandated in paragraphs 5, 31 and 32 o f the Nairobi Declaration and what Members were doing in 
the Special  Session. The proposals should be sent to Ministers at Buenos Aires because the 
technical debate in Geneva had not yielded any outcome. Ministerial engagement was necessary 
for a political  decision on this dossier. They empha sized that the S&D proposals should receive 
equal treatment (parity) with other proposals in other areas being considered in the house. 
Several non -G90 Members also spoke in support of the proposals and for their onward  
transmission to Ministers at Buenos Aires.  
1.22.   One Member also sought clarity on a number of process -related issues and asked questions 
about the appointment of a Facilitator, the schedule of meetings of the Special Session in 
Buenos  Aires, and the path to a Ministerial Decision.  
1.23.   In my concluding remarks at the Special Session on 23 November, I encouraged Members 
to use the remaining time in the lead up to MC11 to reflect and discuss, among themselves, as to 
how to prepare for a constructive ministerial engage ment on this issue in Buenos Aires.  
1.24.   Subsequently in response to my request , a number of Members suggested that it would be 
useful to provide broad questions on trade and development to the Chair to help structure 
Ministerial engagement in an e fficient and  meaningful manner.  
1.25.   Accordingly , in my capacity as Chair of the Special Session , and in the interest of 
transparency and inclusiveness, I had sent out a fax to Members on 24 November requesting them 
to provide questions, if any, on broad trade and developm ent issues that can frame a ministerial 
discussion, through the Secretariat by cob Monday, 27 November 2017.  
1.26.   In response to my request, some Members sent their proposed questions to help frame 
discus sion by Ministers on trade and d evelopment at MC11. In th e interest of transparency, I 
intend to circulate these questions to Members and , time permitting , I hope to convene an 
informal open -ended meeting for Members to exchange preliminary views, if any, before 
Buenos  Aires.  TN/CTD/32  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.27.   Throughout this work in the Special Session, as Chair of this negotiating body I have 
pursued the objective of encouraging constructive engagement which could facilitate tangible 
deliverables at MC11. We are still a long way from bridging the differences that exist. However, I 
continue to ho pe that the Ministerial level discussions on  trade and development issues at 
Buenos  Aires would help us in better understanding the issues on the table and thereby provide 
guidance for improving our work in Geneva on this important dossier.   
 
 
__________