RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/6  
 
11 January 2017  
(17-0198) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Sixth Dedicated Session on the Monitoring Mechanism 
on Special and Differential Treatment  
   
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING O F 15 NOVEMBER 2016  
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Christopher Onyanga Aparr (Uganda)  
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ....................  1 
B. MONITORI NG OF SPECIAL AND DI FFERENTIAL PROVISION S ................................ .. 1 
- Statement by the Chairman  ................................ ................................ .........................  1 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1. The draft agenda as contained in  document WTO/AIR/COMTD/MMSDT/4 of 
4 November  2016 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 Confer ence (MC9) , a Decision was 
taken 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 analyze 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. Two meetings of the Dedicated 
Session on the MM were there fore held in 2014 and in 2015, and the present meeting was the 
second meeting of 2016. He recalled that, in previous meetings, an overview had been provided of 
the Decision establishing the MM, including its scope, functions and operations. He did not inte nd 
to repeat these points, but wished to take the opportunity to remind Members 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 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, at the last 
meeting of the Dedicated Session o n the MM, he had raised 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 some possible ways forward in this regard. He 
indicated that he wo uld welcome any further thoughts on this matter at the present meeting.  
3. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation continued to be 
disappointed by the lack of submissions to the MM, in particular given the considerable effort that 
had been put into negotiating the Mechanism. He believed that the analytical approach envisioned 
in the Decision establishing the MM could help to drive more productive and specific discussions on 
the functioning and possible shortfalls of existing S&D provis ions.  WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/6  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4. The representative of Japan  indicated that his delegation's position on S&D and the MM 
remained the same. He believed that analytical work under the MM could serve as a first step to 
further discussions, including in the context of possible negotiat ions in the Special Session of the 
CTD. He expressed disappointment that there were still no submissions, and encouraged Members 
to make written submissions and thereby test the Mechanism.  Japan was ready to engage in frank 
and constructive discussions on this matter.  
5. The representative of Canada  expressed regret that no submissions had yet been made. 
She encouraged Members to make written submissions in order to make the MM operational.  
6. The representative of the European Union  also expressed her delegation 's disappointment 
with regard to the lack of submissions. She hoped that there would be a submission for 
consideration at the next meeting of the Dedicated Session.  
7. The representative of Nigeria  believed that Members needed to answer some fundamental 
quest ions as to why no written submissions had been made, and why no substantive discussion 
had taken place. In his view, it was the responsibility of all Members to address the current 
situation . He suggested that a written submission would be useful in order to test the Mechanism.  
8. The representative of Ecuador  indicated that she wished to share some thoughts as to why 
the MM had not been made operational. She said that the MM did not have a negotiating mandate, 
and could only make recommendations. The objectiv e of the Mechanism was to monitor the 
implementation of S&D provisions that were identified to be strengthened in the context of the 
negotiations under paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration. This was the responsibility of all 
Members. She recalled that deve loping Members had put forward various proposals in the Special 
Session of the CTD, including the proposals submitted in 2015 by the G90. She also drew 
Members' attention to the remaining proposals contained in documents WT/COMTD/W/192 and 
WT/COMTD/W/208 w hich had been submitted by a number of developing Members in the Regular 
Session of the CTD. She noted that these proposals had been blocked for various reasons.  
9. The representative of India stressed the importance of the sequencing of work, whereby 
the Spe cial Session of the CTD needed to complete the negotiations under paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Declaration before the MM could become operational. He explained that the MM itself was not 
a negotiating body. Once the Special Session had completed its work, the Dedicated Session on 
the MM could examine whether the S&D provisions which had been strengthened through the 
negotiations were functioning satisfactorily, or whether any further recommendations could be 
made. He also recalled that none of the proposals sub mitted in 2015 by the G90 had been 
adopted. This situation explained why no submissions had been made in the MM.  
10. The representative of the United States  regretted that the establishment of the MM 
appeared to have little value to some Members. While he unde rstood that there was some 
disappointment that the Decision establishing the MM did not fully meet the proponents' 
expectations, he believed that Members needed to fulfil their obligations with respect to the 
Decision.  
11. The representative of Canada  said tha t there was no mention in the Decision establishing 
the MM to the sequencing issue referred to by some Members. The MM had a mandate to analyze 
and review the implementation of S&D provisions, and nothing prevented Members from making 
submissions to the MM . She believed that discussions in the MM could enhance Members' 
understanding of issues relating to S&D, and could contribute to more productive discussions in 
the Special Session of the CTD.  
12. The representative of Japan  observed that the sequencing issue had also been mentioned 
at previous meetings of the MM. While he did not have a clear answer on the matter, he believed 
that it was important for Members to engage in discussions based on what was agreed to, rather 
than on what might have been initially pr oposed. The coverage of the  MM extended to all S&D 
provisions, whether strengthened or not. In addition, he believed that a focus on the sequencing 
issue could narrow the scope and utility of the MM in a way which would undermine the interests 
of developin g Members.  WT/COMTD/MMSDT/M/6  
 
- 3 - 
 
  13. The representative of Australia  said that the MM could look at any S&D provision within the 
context of its mandate, and did not need to limit itself to the provisions discussed in the Special 
Session of the CTD. With respect to the issue of the MM not being a negotiating body, he pointed 
out that several WTO Committees did not have a direct negotiating mandate.  
14. The representative of Nigeria  indicated that the Decision establishing the MM had fallen 
short of the expectations of some Members, which  explained why no written submissions had yet 
been made. He noted the views expressed regarding the sequencing issue, and believed that 
Members needed to discuss what could be done to have in place a Mechanism which added value 
in terms of addressing S&D  related issues.  
15. The representative of Bangladesh  said that the original intention had been for the MM to 
enter into force after the Special Session of the CTD had completed its work. He noted in this 
regard that the work of the Special Session had its root s in the Doha Declaration of 2001, while 
the MM was only established in 2013. He believed that the MM could only become operational after 
work in the Special Session was completed.  
16. The representative of Benin  said that S&D provisions needed to be strengthe ned in line 
with paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration before any monitoring could take place in the MM. In 
this regard, he believed that the way forward was to advance the work in the Special Session of 
the CTD and obtain substantial results on S&D at the Eleventh WTO Ministerial Conference  (MC11) . 
17. The representative of Nigeria  recalled that, at the first meeting of the Dedicated Session 
on the MM, the delegation of Lesotho had noted that the MM was not an end in itself, but rather 
was a means to an end. He  reiterated his view that it was the responsibility of all Membe rs to 
make the MM operational , and that a written submission would be useful . 
18. The Chairman  emphasized the need for a written submission to be made in order for the 
MM to become operational. He  called on Members to make written submissions soon, so that a 
substantive discussion could take place at the nex t Dedicated Session on the MM.  
19. The Committee took note  of all interventions.  
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
20. No matter was raised under "Other Business".  
21. The me eting was adjourned . 
 
__________