RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/17 
7 December 2004 
 
 (04-5349) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Seventeenth Special Session  
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 28 OCTOBER 2004 
 
Chairman:  Mr. Faizel Ismail (South Africa) 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA ............................................................................................1  
B. DISCUSSION OF AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ...................................................................1  
C. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................16  
 
 A. A
DOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA  
1. Opening the meeting, the Chairman  said that the draft agenda was contained in Airgram 
WTO/AIR/2407 of 15 October 2004.  He said that he  hoped that Members would continue their work 
in the same spirit of building consensus as they  had shown when discussing the July Package. 
2. The agenda was adopted . 
B. DISCUSSION OF AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
3. The Chairman  said that agenda item B related to the discussion of the Agreement-specific 
proposals.  He said that as Members were aware,  the development section of the July Decision 
contained six themes, one of which related to special  and differential treatment (S&D).  Furthermore, 
the paragraphs on S&D, apart from reaffirming that S&D was an integral part of the WTO Agreements, encompassed a number of deadlines and s tipulated a number of elements as integral to 
the future work on S&D.  The Special Session had been  directed to expeditiously complete the review 
of all the outstanding Agreement-specific proposal s and report to the General Council, with clear 
recommendations for a decision, by July 2005.  Th e Committee had also been instructed, within the 
parameters of the Doha mandate, to a ddress all other outstanding work which, inter alia , included the 
cross-cutting issues, the Monitoring Mechanism and th e incorporation of S&D into the architecture of 
WTO rules.  The Special Session had been directed to then report on that work, as appropriate, to the 
General Council.  With respect to the Category II proposals, he said that the General Council had 
instructed that the bodies to which those proposals ha d been referred, complete the consideration of 
those proposals expeditiously and report to the General Council, with cl ear recommendations for a 
decision no later than July 2005.  Additionally, in  an attempt to address developing country Members 
capacity constraints, those bodies had been instructed to ensure that, as far as possible, their meetings 
did not overlap so as to enable full and effectiv e participation of developing countries in those 
discussions.  He said that it was important that progress was made in those bodies and that Members 
remained committed to fulfilling the mandate and sh owing the necessary flexibility and political will 
to move the work of the Special Session forward.  He believed that with respect to the Category II 
proposals it would be useful to request the bodies to which those proposals had been referred, to 
provide the Committee with an update on the progress that had been made and the current status of 
the proposals.  In that context, he would write to the Chairpersons of those bodies, indicating his 
intention to meet with them and discuss the status of the proposals so as to ensure that the proposals 
were dealt with expeditiously, keeping in mind the July 2005 deadline.   TN/CTD/M/17 
Page 2  
 
4. Moving onto the substantive agenda items, th e Chairman said that as was clear from the 
airgram, he intended to begin by taking up the remaining Agreement-specific proposals and then 
proceed to deal with the cross-cutting issues.  Unde r agenda item B, he said that he intended to only 
address the remaining Agreement-specific proposals in  Category I, and later perhaps the proposals in 
Category III.  He said that S&D remained an importa nt instrument in facilitating the integration of 
developing countries into the multilateral trading system.  He therefore could not stress enough the 
importance of approaching the work on S&D with  the flexibility and political will which might be 
required to enable Members to fulfil the mandate c ontained in the July Decision.  He urged Members 
to remain open and engage in the discussions in  a constructive manner so as to deliver on the 
commitments made at the Doha Ministerial Conference.   
5. The representative of Canada
 said that the agenda for the meeting called for a review of the 
outstanding S&D proposals and to address the cr oss-cutting issues.  She said that though her 
delegation was prepared to work along those lines, it wished to first discuss how Members were going 
to ensure that they did not go down the path previ ously undertaken.  On a more general note, she said 
that her delegation continued to have objections to proposals that sought automatic self-granting 
extensions, open-ended financial ob ligations and changes in the text where no problems had been 
demonstrated.  In her view, the remaining Agreem ent-specific proposals appear ed to fit into those 
categories.  Her delegation was nevertheless prep ared, as it had demonstrated, to engage in the 
discussions in order to understand the underlying problems faced by developing countries and to 
genuinely attempt to address them.  Such an approach  had also been taken within some of the other 
WTO bodies as Members attempted to address the S&D proposals.  She cited her delegation's 
proposal made in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary  (SPS) Committee entitled "Enhancing Transparency 
of S&D Treatment within the SPS Agreement", whic h built upon a previous proposal made by the 
delegation of Egypt.  Many discussions had taken pl ace in the SPS Committee to clarify that proposal 
and it had been adopted in principle subject to el aboration by the Secretariat.  Her delegation had 
continued to work closely with Members to resolv e concerns that they had.  The processes were 
clarified in a further submission made by her dele gation, dated 5 October 2004 , titled "Elaboration of 
the Proposal to Enhance Transparency of S& D Treatment in Favour of Developing Country 
Members" which was adopted by the SPS Committ ee on 27 October 2004.  That, she said, was a 
concrete example of the efforts made by Members in the different negotiating committees and working groups to address c oncerns relating to the impl ementation of S&D provisions. 
6. She went on to say that it was important that the Special Session engaged the Chairpersons of 
the bodies to which the Category
 II proposals had been sent to ensure that they were being addressed 
with similar vigour and attention.  The Chairpers ons could be asked to report to the Special Session 
on progress.  She recalled that those bodies had already once done so in November 2002.  Her delegation felt that a number of responses showed th at the experts in those committees had not really 
felt that a problem existed, and had felt "Why fix so mething that had not been broken".  She said that 
an elaboration of the other proposals, where there wa s a clear elaboration of the concern involved, but 
where the underlying issue or problem had not been cl early articulated, needed to be subjected to 
further elaboration and analysis.  Those proposals would then take the shape of a committee-driven 
S&D proposal and could be sent to the General C ouncil with a clear recommendation for action as per 
the instructions in the July Decision.  She said that other recommendations to strengthen S&D provisions had been made in previous submissions to the Special Session.  One recommendation 
made by her delegation in docum ent TN/CTD/W/21 warranted a closer look.  That recommendation 
stated that "many S&D treatment provisions are of a 'best endeavour' nature or involve other 
multilateral agencies.  We cannot assume that becau se we do not have any information from Members 
as to how they have tried to implement these, that  nothing has occurred.  The Special Session might 
consider recommending to the General Council that  the Committees and Working Groups responsible 
for the relevant WTO Agreements have a more thorough, coherent and regular reporting process on 
S&D treatment.  This could be a vital task of  the monitoring mechanism proposed by the Africa 
Group."  The Monitoring Mechanism, could and should,  in her delegation's view, be resuscitated and 
become a means to provide Members with much needed information.  She said that Job(02)/138  TN/CTD/M/17 
 Page 3 
 
 
contained many good ideas, including on issues where Members had been quite close to an agreement 
on a balanced and manageable process. 
7. She concluded by saying that there was the question of the principles and objectives of S&D 
and the organisation of the work ahead.  Many delegations had presented their ideas on those issues 
but those had not yet been fully discussed.  Her delegation had proposed strengthening S&D on the 
basis of four overarching ideas:  transparency , Member-specific flexibility, co-operation and 
efficiency, and effectiveness in document TN/CTD /W/21 which, in her delegation's view, also 
provided some useful concepts to take the work  further.  She said that a thorough, organized 
discussion would help Members to make pr ogress in S&D throughout the negotiations. 
8. The representative of Kenya  recalled that work on S&D as mandated in the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration remained outstanding even though more than two years had passed since the deadline set 
out in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  In spite  of the time spent in trying to reach agreement on 
various proposals, there was a continued sense of frustration among some Members over the lack of 
progress.  His delegation was pleased to note that the General Council Decision of 1 August 2004 had 
managed to put the Doha Development Agenda ( DDA) back on track.  The Decision reconfirmed the 
centrality of development concerns and had placed  the needs of developing and least-developed 
countries at the heart of the Doha Work Programme.  It had also reaffirmed that S&D provisions were 
an integral part of the WTO Agreements.  His delegation welcomed Members' commitment in the 
July Decision to complete the remaining work on  S&D issues expeditiously.  He said that his 
delegation hoped that that renewed commitment fro m Members would ensure positive results within 
the timeframe set out in the July Decision.  He said that the African Group was ready and willing to 
support the Chairman's efforts in that regard. 
9. He emphasised that the point of reference that  should continue to guide Members' work on 
S&D was paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Decl aration and paragraph 12.1 of the Doha Decision 
on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns.  He said that his delegation had listened carefully to 
the Chairman's remarks and in terms of moving forward wished to suggest a number of ways to 
proceed.  First, with respect to the outstandi ng Agreement-specific proposals which had been 
circulated for the meeting, that was the rema ining Category I and Category III proposals, his 
delegation felt that the Chairman s hould begin intensive informal consultations in an attempt to reach 
agreement on those proposals before Christmas.  Th ere were a number of Category I proposals where 
Members were close to agreement.   At the same time, those propo sals in Category III which required 
some redrafting could be taken up after the Christmas break.  Second, with respect to the Category II 
proposals, his delegation believed that the Special  Session should maintain a supervisory role over 
those proposals.  His delegation concurred with the Chair's suggestion of writing to the Chairpersons 
of the relevant bodies to ensure that the Special Session was kept abreast of the developments that 
were taking place in those various bodies.  The Special Session should receive a report after each meeting of the bodies in which those proposals were  taken up, updating Members on what took place 
at the meeting.  As part of this supervisory role , the Special Session should also ensure that there was 
no overlap of the meetings, something which had b een captured in the July Decision.  He further 
suggested that if progress was not forthcoming in  the bodies addressing the Category II proposals, the 
Special Session should itself take up those proposals for expeditious resolution within the time-frame 
set out in the July Decision. 
10. The representative of Switzerland
 said that in order to expedite the work in the Special 
Session, her delegation believed that Members needed to consider an efficient way of addressing the 
Agreement-specific proposals.  It was her delegation' s expectation that it would be possible to address 
the cross-cutting issues in parallel and that time s hould be given to discuss the cross-cutting issues.  
She said that in some instances it might be fruitful  to consider the Agreement-specific proposals and 
the cross-cutting issues at the same time.  She suggest ed that in order to avoid dealing with all the 
proposals at once or dealing with a never ending list of one proposal at a time, Members might wish 
to deal with a limited number of Agreement-specifi c proposals that addressed similar concerns or that TN/CTD/M/17 
Page 4  
 
proposed similar solutions of how to tackle par ticular problems and make those provisions more 
precise, effective and operational.  Her delegation ha d not attempted to put together proposals dealing 
with similar concerns but that was where the Ch air could assist through his own wisdom and as a 
result of consultations he would hold with Member s.  Her delegation did not wish to get into 
discussions on why some of the S&D provisions had not  been utilised in the past, but would be happy 
to look at the underlying reasons and circumstances that had led to the proposals being made and the 
specific problems that those proposals were looking to address.  With respect to the Category II 
proposals she said that it was important that the Speci al Session be kept informed about the current 
status of the proposals.   
11. The Chairman
 said that Members seemed to support the notion of getting the bodies to which 
the Category II proposals had been referred to report to the Special Session.  He added that although 
there were some reservations about getting in to detailed discussions on the Agreement-specific 
proposals, Members seemed to be willing to at least  begin to tackle the Category I proposals before 
the Christmas break.  In this context, he refe rred to the suggestion made by the representative of 
Switzerland that the proposals be orga nised into thematic clusters.   
12. The representative of the United States  said that the success of Members' work under the 
Chairman's guidance in producing a consensus on the development section of the July Decision 
should be continued.  Her delega tion felt that during the discussions on the July Decision a broader 
range of views had been aired on many of the issues that related to S&D.  Her delegation hoped that 
as work moved forward, a way could be found of  ensuring that the different S&D issues were 
examined from a broad perspective so that Members were not faced with the polarity that they had 
experienced over the past two years.  Her delegati on would strive to maintain the positive atmosphere 
that had been created.  She said that the Chairman 's efforts in reaching out to delegations in the 
informal consultations held in July had been helpfu l.  He had been able to ascertain where differences 
existed and where Members might be able to make progress.  His energy and willingness to seek out fresh ideas from a wide range of Members was a mo del that her delegation hoped the Chairman would 
follow even when continuing work on S&D.  She said that during discussions on the July Decision 
Members had begun to explore ideas on what kind of an approach would help move them beyond the 
polarisation that had existed in the past.  Her delega tion shared the view that seeking out some of the 
underlying issues behind the proposals would enable Members to consider them thematically.  This 
would help in making the provisions more precise a nd operational.  A thematic framework could also 
serve to focus Members' attention on the connecti on between real problems and effective solutions.  
She gave the example of the various tirets that focu ssed on trade-related technical assistance.  As the 
representative of Canada had shared, the mandatory nature of some of the proposals was a problem 
for her delegation and Members were all aware of  the boundaries therein.  Her delegation believed 
that there was a more productive direction that the Special Session could work on with the Chairman of the CTD in Regular Session to help target the assistance already being provided.  In addition to 
being focused, she said that Members needed to be practical in their work ahead.  Seeking practical 
solutions would increase the possibility of all Members benefiting from a successful Round.  She 
noted that it was apparent from the broad scope of  negotiations, that Members were finding it much 
easier to deal with S&D in the cont ext of the respective market access i ssues, than in the area of rules.  
There were underlying reasons for this and that was perhaps why there had been an in-principle 
agreement reached on the 28 Agreement-specific proposal s which tended to be of a more practical and 
pragmatic nature than those proposals which had not yet been agreed upon. 
13. With respect to the Category III proposals, she said that she did not believe that Members 
could move further on them.  There was a wi de and unyielding divergence of views on the 
fundamental points behind the Category III proposals and Members could either choose to let that 
concrete wall stop them or they could choose to go around it and find some other productive ways of 
moving forward.  Sometimes Members needed to accep t the fact that they had different views and 
take the lessons learned about why they differed to  search for new approaches and ideas that could be 
more productive and result in real benefit for all Memb ers.  With respect to the Category II proposals,  TN/CTD/M/17 
 Page 5 
 
 
she said that her delegation agreed that the Speci al Session should maintain a supervisory role and 
was pleased that the Chairman had intended to m eet the Chairpersons of those bodies to which the 
proposals had been referred.  Her de legation had, over the past week, been interacting with colleagues 
who dealt with those bodies.  From the feedback re ceived, it appeared that, in some cases, there had 
been serious efforts to engage in discussions on those proposals;  in other cases, there had been 
opportunities to engage on the proposals but di scussions had not taken place partly because the 
proponents had not been present, which was some thing that Members had addressed in the July 
Decision.  The Special Session needed to ensure that Category II proposals were given priority in 
those Committees.  She said she did not quite unde rstand the delegation of Kenya's suggestion that 
some of the Category II proposals might need to be br ought back into the Special Session if they were 
not addressed in the various bodies.  In her view, the Special Session needed to ensure that those 
proposals were addressed in those bodies, which had a responsibility to address them and report to the 
General Council with recommendations.  Members, howev er, needed to be mindful that the solutions 
may not be exactly what the initial proposals had propo sed.  For this reason too, it was important that 
Members take a step back and consider what coul d be done to address the fundamental issues behind 
the proposals.  She said that her delegation supporte d the Chairman's approach but felt that it would 
not be productive to take the proposals in Categor y I one by one because that  approach had already 
been adopted, without too much success.  Howe ver, considering the underlying issues that the 
proposals were attempting to address would probably, in her delegation's view, be more productive.   
14. The Chairman  noted that Members were moving to wards a possible convergence.  A 
suggestion had been made that Members begin to  consider the Agreement-specific proposals in 
thematic clusters and that although some Members had reservations about addressing the 
Agreement-specific proposals as had been in th e past, Members seemed willing to attempt to 
understand and address the underlying issues that the proposals had raised. 
15. The representative of Australia  said that the document that had been circulated in the meeting 
listing out the remaining Category I and Category III proposals had reminded Members of where they 
were with regard to some of the various Agreem ent-specific proposals and had also helped to remind 
them that a lot of work had been carried out on th e Agreement-specific proposal s in the lead up to the 
Cancún Ministerial Conference.  He said that Members should not lose sight of the fact that significant progress had been made.  It was of course  disappointing that Members had not been able to 
harvest the 28 proposals, but his delegation's view had always been that it made no sense to push for that when there appeared to have  been some reluctance from the pr oponents to take that course of 
action.  He said that his delegation was pleased, lik e other delegations, that the July framework had 
provided some further guidance on S&D.  Clearly Me mbers needed to decide how best to approach 
the work on the Agreement-specific proposals so as to meet the July 2005 deadline.  The Special 
Session had also been tasked to consider the cro ss-cutting issues, the Monito ring Mechanism and the 
incorporation of S&D into the architecture of WTO ru les.  All that work was important and needed to 
be advanced in unison, especially since in his dele gation's view, it would be difficult to make progress 
in any one area of the work on S&D in isolation.  His delegation also welcomed the reference in the 
July Decision to the Category II proposals and th e direction that those proposals be discussed 
expeditiously in the various bodies.  That was a reaf firmation of his delegation' s long held view that it 
was important to discuss issues where the relevant technical expertise lay, and that was in the 
negotiating groups and the other relevant WTO bodies.  His delegation agreed with the Chairman and 
others that there was value in the Special Session being kept apprised of that work and it supported 
the Chairman's efforts in that regard.  He said a regular reporting mechanism would be useful, though 
Members did not need to be too prescriptive in that regard.   
16. He went on to say that there had been some  interesting suggestions on how to handle the 
discussion on the Agreement-specific proposals.  It  went without saying that his delegation was 
looking to the Chairman on how to take the wo rk forward.  If Members wished to address the 
proposals one by one to refresh themselves on where th ings stood then that was not a problem for his 
delegation.  His delegation had pr eviously made its views known on the proposals and those views TN/CTD/M/17 
Page 6  
 
still stood.  However, his delegation would nevertheless be prepared to repeat them if that would help 
the process.  He did, however, wish to register a number of points if Members were going to pursue 
their work on that track.  He said that Members ne eded to be realistic about  what would be possible 
through such a process given the history of the discussions.  His delegation's sense was that going 
through the proposals one by one was unlikely to l ead to any breakthrough.  If there was room to 
move on those proposals, in the process that Member s had earlier pursued, it had not been obvious to 
his delegation.  In the past, his delegation had pointed out that it had had trouble understanding some 
suggestions that permeated many of the proposal s, such as seeking permanent exemptions from 
existing agreements and did not think that was th e best way to proceed.  His delegation had trouble 
seeing how that would be in the interest of any WT O Member whether developed or developing.  For 
his delegation, the Agreement-specific proposals ha d been useful in highlighting some of the 
underlying issues that Members needed to address in their discussions.  Taking a step back and 
looking at those issues might be one way to make progress.  It might also lead to a more focused 
discussion on the underlying systemic issues.  Whethe r those were termed cross-cutting issues or not, 
the key point was the need for a holistic discussion if Members were genuine in their attempts to find 
a way forward.  His delegation believed that th e July Decision has set the basis for a productive 
discussion on all of those issues, rather than just reverting to the process followed in the past which 
had not made any demonstrable progress.  Member s needed to take a st ep back and think of 
alternative approaches on the best way forward until Ju ly 2005.  He said that some of the ideas put 
forward, such as that of clustering, was a useful  way to proceed if the aim was to identify the 
underlying themes of some of the proposals as th at would enable Members to address the issues in a 
more holistic manner.  His delegation wished to reflect  further to ensure that such an approach would 
lead Members out of the type of discussions they  had been involved in the past.  His delegation 
realized the importance of S&D to the overall pr ogress in the negotiations and would remain fully 
engaged in the work on S&D. 
17. The Chairman
 said that the delegation of Australia had raised the issue of the 
28 Agreement-specific proposals that Members had agreed to in principle, and though he had no 
intention of discussing them, he hoped that as Decemb er drew near, Members could consider, in the 
interest of making progress, when and how to harvest those proposals.   
18. The representative of Colombia  said that the Chairman's efforts during the discussions on the 
development section of the July Decision had enab led Members to reach a positive outcome.  The 
July Decision had launched a new phase in the discu ssions relating to paragr aph 44 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration.  Her delegation would con tinue to participate constructively in that new 
phase of discussions in an attempt to fulfil, in a sa tisfactory manner and within the set time-limit, the 
mandate agreed to by Ministers in the Doha Mini sterial Declaration.  She said that the various 
interventions made by delegations showed that it would be possible to revitalise work on S&D.  As 
far as her delegation was concerned, the principle of  S&D was an element of fundamental importance, 
designed to allow developing countries to benefit fro m the multilateral trading system.  Her delegation 
therefore valued the efforts being made in the Sp ecial Session to review the existing S&D provisions 
with the objective of making them more precise, effec tive and operational.  In that regard, the section 
on S&D in the July Decision reflected the elements contained in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration and maintained that as the frame of reference that should guide the discussions in the 
future. 
19. She went on to say that with respect to the Ag reement-specific proposals, it was important to 
build on the results of the discussions held over th e past two years and avoid repetition in order to 
make optimum use of the limited time and resources available to Members.  She therefore suggested that the proponents review their proposals in light of  the analysis and observations that had been made 
in the Special Session.  That would allow Members to  carry out an in-depth analysis of the remaining 
Agreement-specific proposals, which with some amendments, could be added to those proposals 
already approved.  Her delegation believed that  Members should begin by moving forward on the 
Agreement-specific proposals, after which depending  on the progress made, Members could consider  TN/CTD/M/17 
 Page 7 
 
 
how to structure their discussions on the cross-cutting issues.  Her delegation w as willing to engage in 
the discussions on S&D in a more interactive way, bu t it would be appropriate to reflect on whether to 
devise an alternate format for the discussions.  She gave the example of holding informal discussions 
among smaller groups as was done in other negotiating bo dies so as to facilitate greater interaction in 
the discussions.  She said that her delegation suppor ted the suggestion that the various bodies to which 
the Category II proposals had been referred, inform the Special Session about the status of work on 
those proposals as this would provide a better monitoring of the progress on those proposals. 
20. The Chairman  said that it would be helpful if in the intervening period, Members began to 
discuss those issues among themselves.  It was clear  that the debate was not only between developed 
and developing countries, it was also  between developing countries.  He  said that he believed that at 
least on some of the proposals progress could be made  if developing countries  could find a way of 
narrowing down the differences that existed among them. 
21. The representative of Peru  said that his delegation stood ready to work constructively on the 
Agreement-specific proposals and in that regard wi shed to put forward four guidelines on which it 
believed Members should base their work.  First, was to  reaffirm that S&D was an integral part of the 
various rules and disciplines of the WTO and was a mechanism that aimed to help developing 
countries benefit from the multilateral trading system.  As Members could see in the July Decision, S&D had two sides;  first there was the "defensive" side, relating to flexibility in the application of 
certain rules and disciplines;  and second, there wa s an "offensive" side, relating to better market 
access conditions for products and sectors of interest to developing countries.  Both those elements 
needed to be taken into account in Members deliber ations.  Second, he said that Members needed to 
maintain the parameters of the Doha Mandate, wh ich was essentially to review the existing S&D 
provisions with the objective of strengthening them  and making them more precise, effective and 
operational.  Third, it was important to draw upon wh at had already been achieved.  With respect to 
the Category I proposals, progress had been made and the discussions had led to new texts which 
needed to form the basis upon which Members should continue their work so as to avoid repetition.  
His delegation agreed with the sugg ested approach of dealing with th e proposals in thematic clusters 
in informal consultations.  He commented that it s hould be possible to agree to a possible package by 
the Christmas break if Members concentrated on the last language considered.  Lastly, he said that as 
had been mentioned by the delegation of Colombia, Members should first address the Agreement-specific proposals after which Members could address the cross-cutting issues, involving 
the principles and objectives of S&D.  With resp ect to the Category II proposals, his delegation 
recognised the need to strengthen, in a practi cal manner, the way in which the Special Session 
monitored the work of the subsidiary bodies.  W ith respect to the Category III proposals, his 
delegation was flexible as to how those proposals s hould be addressed.  However, Members needed to 
remain realistic as to where progress could or  could not be made on those proposals.   
22. The representative of Egypt
 said that Members were demonstrating a positive and 
constructive attitude towards continuing work on S& D.  His delegation hoped that this spirit would 
continue to be evident in future discussions.  He said that there was a need for Members to reflect 
upon their experience on the work carried out on S&D since Ministers had agreed to the work 
programme on S&D at the Doha Ministerial Conferen ce.  That meant that Members should consider 
the negative elements of those discussions and keep them in mind as the work on S&D moved 
forward.  He agreed with the representative of the United States that Members needed to remain 
focused and practical.  With respect to procedure, he said that Members needed to pursue their work 
differently than what they had done in the past.  In this context, he agreed with the idea of placing the 
Agreement-specific proposals into thematic clusters.  The deliberations should be first carried out in 
an informal mode and then decisions taken in form al mode.  He said that having participated in the 
work of the Special Session over the past year, he  had witnessed a conflict of prioritisation about 
whether to address the Agreement-specific proposals first or the cross-cutting issues.  In his view, 
what was needed was a confidence-building exercise.   The July Decision had instructed the Special 
Session to expeditiously complete the review of all the outstanding Agreement-specific proposals and TN/CTD/M/17 
Page 8  
 
had further instructed the Special Session to a ddress all other outstanding work, which included the 
cross-cutting issues.  He said that Members coul d discuss both issues in parallel.  However, there 
needed to be a demonstrable movement on the Agreement-specific proposals.  His delegation was 
concerned that addressing the cross-cutting issues would be time consuming and could be at the 
expense of making progress on the Agreement-specific proposals.  He agreed that Members' views on 
some of the proposals were quite far apart but that did not mean that those proposals should be 
sidelined.  Instead, Members needed to find new ways of addressing those proposals.   
23. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that he wished to make four points on 
possible ways to move the work on S&D forward.  He said that his delegation believed that it would 
only be possible to make progress on the outstanding Agreement-specific proposals if Members 
addressed the cross-cutting issues in parallel.  Ther e was a positive relationship between the two.  A 
clear understanding on some of the cross-cutting issues would help solve some of the problems that 
had arisen in the past during discussion on the Agre ement-specific proposals.  Like other delegations, 
he said that he was pleased with the positivity in interventions and his delegation was willing to work 
towards a possible package by the Christmas break.  In line with the need to make simultaneous 
progress on the Agreement-specific proposals and the cross-cutting issues, he felt that it would be 
important to build on the proposals that had alre ady been agreed to at the Cancún Ministerial 
Conference, while at the same time addressing the cr oss-cutting issues, which could then serve to help 
Members address the remaining Agreement-specific pr oposals.  His delegation was also hoping that 
Members could agree on operationalising the Monitori ng Mechanism.  With respect to how to deal 
with the Agreement-specific proposals, he said that other delegations had referre d to the need to avoid 
revisiting the discussions that had been held be fore the Cancún Ministerial Conference.  His 
delegation agreed and though it was open to constr uctively discussing the outstanding proposals, it 
felt that progress would be limited if this work w as done in isolation of the cross-cutting issues.  He 
said that as had been alluded to by other delega tions, it would be beneficial for the proponents to 
consider redrafting some of their proposals in light of previous discussions.  With respect to the 
Category II proposals, he said that his delegation did not see any value in bringing the proposals back 
to the Special Session and that this was not an appr oach that was foreseen in the July Decision.  The 
scope for making progress on those proposals remained  greater in the other bodies.  However, there 
was a need for those bodies to provide informati on on how the work was being pursued as well as for 
keeping pressure on those bodies to deliver and fulfil th e mandate contained in the July Decision.  As 
regards the cross-cutting issues, he said that hi s delegation had submitted its ideas in three separate 
communications submitted in the Special Session in 2002.  These had not been fully discussed and it 
would be useful to revisit them since they contained useful and important issues which could be a basis for discussion.   
24. The representative of India
 said that his delegation had listened carefully to how other 
delegations felt Members should address the S&D issues in the future.  For his delegation, work was 
an important and integral part of the DDA.  He said that Members had not met since the July Decision 
and his delegation was pleased that work on S&D had resumed.  His delegation believed that the July 
Decision provided guidance on how Members should pro ceed and provided a time line that needed to 
be kept in mind as Members continued their work in  the Special Session.  He went on to say that 
Members had made progress on some of the proposals but a lot of work still remained to be done and 
it was in that context that the General Council had instructed the Special Session to expeditiously 
complete the review of all outstanding Agreem ent-specific proposals and to report with clear 
recommendations by July 2005.  He was certain th at the positive engagement shown by Members in 
the meeting would result in concrete results on S&D.   He said that there had been a suggestion that 
the Category I proposals be dealt with in thematic clusters, and although his delegation was not really 
clear about that proposal, it stood ready to cons tructively engage with Members on the different 
suggestions that had been made.  He agreed with the representative of Kenya that the guiding 
principle of work should be the mandate contai ned in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration, which had been reaffirmed in the July  Decision, and which stated that the proposals be 
reviewed with a view of making them more precise, effective and operational.  The July Decision was  TN/CTD/M/17 
 Page 9 
 
 
clear on the treatment of the Category II proposal s and his delegation supported the Chairman's 
suggestion that the Special Session maintain a superv isory role of the work on those proposals.  After 
all, the Special Session had been set up by th e Trade Negotiations Committee to address work on 
S&D and in that light it was important for the Special  Session to play a monitoring role.  With respect 
to the Category III proposals, he said that in Ap ril 2003 when the then General Council Chairman had 
come up with the categorisation of the proposals, he had made it clear that one of the parameters was 
that all S&D proposals should be addressed.  He said  that his delegation was flexible and willing to 
take a cue from the Chairman as to how to proceed  on those proposals.  What was important was for 
Members to build on the positive atmosphere to  see whether progress could be made on the 
Agreement-specific proposals.   
25. The representative of Brazil  said that the mandate contained in the July Decision was clear 
that the Special Session should expeditiously  complete the review of all outstanding 
Agreement-specific proposals which included the Category I and III proposals and where some 
Members might have difficulties with the Category II  proposals those too would have to be addressed 
by July 2005.  The July Decision had also inst ructed the Special Session to address all outstanding 
work, including the cross-cutting issues.  His dele gation would leave it to the Chairman to decide 
whether that work should be carried out in parallel.  He said that the Chairman was the best person to 
organise the work of the Special Session so as to  maximise the benefit from the discussions.  Like 
others, his delegation was flexible on how to addr ess the proposals.  However, what was important 
was that no room be left for anyone to argue that not enough time had been available for the 
Committee to consider all the issues.  He said that the Special Session could benefit from the 
alternative approaches that had been  suggested.  His delegation preferred the discussions to take place 
in an informal mode.  With respect to the Category II proposals, he said that his delegation agreed that 
the Chairpersons of the other bodies be contacted to obtain a feedback on how work on those proposals had progressed.  However, it was important  that Members ensured that their colleagues 
handling those issues in other bodies addressed those pr oposals as a matter of priority so that there 
was a coherent approach in the work.  He said that  it was also important that there was no overlap of 
meetings, a problem which had become serious and constituted a difficulty for some Members. It was 
therefore important that the Chairman wrote to the Chairpersons and the Secretaries of those bodies to 
ensure that there was no overlap.   
26. The Chairman
 said that he agreed that  the discussions should take place in informal mode 
after which the Special Session could resort to fo rmal mode in which progress made could be taken 
into account.   
27. The representative of Malaysia  said that her delegation welcomed the July Decision as a 
means of giving new impetus to the mandate cont ained in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration.  Her delegation believed that the ma ndate was clear and specific.  She noted that 
Members had made some progress prior to the Cancún Ministerial Conference, albeit not as much as 
had been hoped.  Prior to the Cancún Ministerial C onference intensive consultations had led to some 
results, and as alluded to by othe rs, it was important to build on tho se results.  Her delegation agreed 
that the Chairman hold informal consultations over the course of the following months on the remaining Category I proposals.  With respect to the Category II proposals, she said that the Special 
Session should maintain a supervisory role and she s uggested that an official letter be sent to the 
Chairpersons underscoring the importance of finding solutions to those proposals.  She also agreed 
with the representative of Kenya that after each meeting of the various bodies, a report should be 
made to the Special Session on the progress made.  Her delegation believed that progress could be 
made on the Category II proposals if Members were committed to the work on S&D.  She referred to 
the example given by the delegation of Canada on the transparency proposal on S&D notifications 
submitted in the SPS Committee.  That was a pos itive achievement made in the SPS Committee.  
With respect to the Category III  proposals, she said that the representative of Kenya had made a 
pragmatic suggestion of redrafting the proposals, which she believed would help in addressing some 
of those proposals.  Her delegation agreed with ot hers that the Special Session should build on what it TN/CTD/M/17 
Page 10  
 
had achieved and continue to work on the remain ing Agreement-specific proposals before taking up 
the cross-cutting issues.  With respect to the suggestion made about addressing the proposals in 
clusters, she said that her delegation was not certain  how that would be done.  There were only 12 
proposals remaining in Category I and another 12 in  Category III.  She asked whether these remaining 
24 proposals would be clustered and how those cluste rs would be formed.  She said that after the 
Doha Ministerial Conference a process of clustering ha d been followed but that was when there were 
a large number of proposals to be considered.  Ho wever, with just a few proposals remaining she was 
not certain how such a clustering would be achieved.   Nevertheless, her delegation was interested to 
see how such an approach would be adopted.  The main focus needed to be on the remaining Category 
I proposals and if progress was achieved on those proposals then Members could move onto 
addressing the Category III proposals. 
28. The representative of Thailand
 said that S&D was an important issue for developing 
countries.  She said that she did not wish to repeat what had already been said but her delegation agreed that there was a need fo r some confidence-building measures.  Members had already attempted 
to discuss the Agreement-specific proposals and the cr oss-cutting issues in parallel but that approach 
had not been fruitful.  Her delegation was willing to adopt such an approach again but without 
progress on the Agreement-specific proposals she was not certain that Members could go far on the 
cross-cutting issues.  Members also needed to be aware of the time available and since there were 
only 12 remaining Category I Agreement-specific proposal s, it would be best to address those first.  
She said that her delegation was not certain how the clustering of proposals would work as the 
proposals had already been put into categories by the General Council Chairman in 2003.  In light of 
that fact, Members needed to perhaps just concentr ate on that categorisation.  With respect to the 
Category III proposals, her delegation was willing to consider any redrafted language and would work 
constructively to reach an agreement on them.  Rega rding the Category II proposals, she agreed with 
others that the Special Session should maintain a supervisory role and also agreed that it would be 
useful to engage in informal consulta tions to move the process forward.   
29. The representative of Ecuador
 said that his delegation was committed to actively participating 
in the work on S&D and would support the Chairman in his attempt to take the work forward.  The 
work on S&D had different aspects that needed to be  taken into account and most of the interventions 
demonstrated a positive and constructive spirit among Members to make progress.  He said that S&D 
was important to Ecuador, not only from a defens ive perspective but also from an offensive 
perspective, in terms of proposals that could incr ease developing country exports to other markets.  
His delegation felt that it was also important to k eep in mind the mandate in paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration of ensuring that the S&D provisions were made more precise, effective and operational.  His delegation recognised that the July  Decision contained a framework for further work 
on S&D provisions.  However, it was important that addressing the Agreement-specific proposals did not lead to a repetitive discussion.  Members needed  to make use of the experience that they had 
gained and to ensure that this experience led to po sitive results for developing countries.  He agreed 
that it would be useful to hold informal consu ltations with Members as well as for developing 
countries to meet among themselves, as had been suggested by the Chairman.  He said that 
consultations with the Chairpersons of those Co mmittees to which Category II proposals had been 
referred would help to make progress on those proposal s.  He said that his delegation had no objection 
to putting the proposals into thematic clusters as  long as it did not mean that Members would be 
reverting to issues that had earlier given rise to cont roversy.  Members needed to stick to criteria that 
would assist in addressing issues in a systemic way and then that would provide Members with 
solutions on the various Agreement-specific proposals. 
30. The representative of Japan
 said that since that was the first Special Session meeting after the 
July Decision, he would briefly touch upon his delegation's position on how Members could address 
work on S&D.  He said that his delegation contin ued to be positively engaged in the discussions and 
would continue to do so in the future.  In that spirit,  his delegation could agree, if others so wished, to 
address the Agreement-specific proposals one by one.   However, it was important that Members kept  TN/CTD/M/17 
 Page 11 
 
 
in mind the discussions that had taken place on the proposals before the Cancún Ministerial 
Conference.  This would avoid reopening the deba te that Members had been involved in earlier.  
Although Members had not been able to reach consensus on adopting the 28 Agreement-specific 
proposals which they had agreed to in principle, they needed to avoid reopening discussions on those 
proposals, especially since many delegations be lieved that the discussions on those proposals had 
been exhausted.  He said that discussions in the negotiating bodies were back on track with emphasis 
being placed on development issues.  Members need ed to therefore concentrate on the issues being 
dealt with in the Special Session and avoid duplica ting the work taking place in other bodies.  His 
delegation supported the Chairman's approach of c onsulting with the Chairpersons of other bodies 
who could report periodically to the Special Session.  He also said that it would be constructive if 
some of the proposals in Category III were redrafte d by the proponents.  He went on to say that 
Members should deal with S&D in a more holistic ma nner.  In that regard, it was appropriate that 
Members in the July Decision had agreed to discu ss not only the Agreement-specific proposals, but 
also the cross-cutting issues, including the Monito ring Mechanism.  Within that mandate Members 
needed to agree on how and what to discuss under the cross-cutting issues.  His delegation placed 
high priority on discussing the cross-cutting issues.  Although it was important to keep in mind the 
time-frame set in the July Decision, it was more  important to reach agreement on what Members 
should discuss and how they should discuss that. 
31. The representative of Indonesia  said that he wished to share some views and provide some 
inputs on how the upcoming meetings of the Special Session could be organised.  He said that there were only six weeks left until the Christmas break and although that was not much time, if Members 
showed the necessary flexibility th en something could be achieved by then.  His delegation had 
shown flexibility in the past when addressing the proposals and he urged other Members to do the 
same in order to make some concrete progress by the end of the year.  He agreed that categorisation of 
the remaining Agreement-specific proposals could help  to add more recommendations to those that 
had already been agreed to in principle.  He did not believe that it would be possible to discuss the 
remaining Category I and III proposal in the six week s up to Christmas.  His delegation was willing to 
pick some of the remaining Category I proposals that could be addressed a priori.  That was not to say 
that the other proposals were not important, it was just  a matter of prioritising.  He said that Members 
needed to undertake a stocktaking exercise in orde r to set up a systematic and focused programme of 
work for 2005.  That was the only way that Memb ers could achieve tangible results.  Attempting to 
discuss everything at the same time would not re sult in any positive outcome.  With respect to 
Category II proposals, he said that his delegation s upported the suggestion that the Chairman keep in 
touch with the Chairpersons of the bodies to which those proposals had been referred.  It would also 
be useful to provide feedback of those discussions to the Special Session.  He said the Special Session 
had recently discussed the S&D proposals in another body,  but had not been able to make progress.  It 
was therefore important to find a way to get Me mbers to engage in comprehensive discussions on 
those issues in those bodies. 
32. The representative of China
 said that his delegation was pleased that the Special Session had 
resumed its work and that there was a new mome ntum among Members to pursue the work.  He said 
that his delegation would be pleased if something could be achieved by the Christmas break and that it would play a constructive role and work closely with the Chairman to achieve re sults.  With respect to 
the Category I proposals, he said that his delegati on agreed that Members should focus their attention 
on the underlying issues that the different proposals we re attempting to address.  It would be helpful 
to examine the Agreement-specific proposals from a di fferent angle, though this was easier said than 
done, especially since it might not be easy to defi ne the underlying issues.  With respect to the 
Category II proposals, he said that it was clear th at the bodies to which those proposals had been 
referred were more likely to be able to deal effec tively with the specific proposals referred to them.  
Those bodies had been mandated to address those pr oposals expeditiously.  He said that he fully 
appreciated the Chairman's efforts in setting up a meeting with the Chairpersons of those bodies.  With respect to the Category III proposals he said th at his delegation was flexible with the approach TN/CTD/M/17 
Page 12  
 
that had been suggested, though he believed that it  may perhaps be better to take up the Category III 
proposals at a later stage, as that would give the proponents time to refine their proposals. 
33. The representative of Kenya
 clarified that when proposals had been categorised by the 
General Council Chairman in 2003, some Memb ers had expressed difficulties with the Category III 
proposals and had stated the need to redraft some of those proposals.  In an attempt to move the work 
forward his delegation was ready to work with  those Members that had problems with the 
Category III proposals and which felt that they needed  redrafting.  He said that a number of Members 
had suggested addressing the Agreement-specific propo sals and the cross-cutting issues in parallel.  
However, if one looked at the mandate contained in  the July Decision, there was a clear time-frame 
for addressing the Agreement-specific proposals.  It w as therefore clear that those proposals had to be 
addressed expeditiously.  He said that the cross-cu tting issues were on the table and would need to be 
addressed.  However, to some extent this  would depend on the progress made on the 
Agreement-specific proposals;  then Members could decide which cross-cutting issues to address.  He 
noted that the representative of the United States had mentioned that the proponents had not been 
present at some of the meetings where the Category II proposals had been taken up.  This was because 
at times a number of meetings were scheduled at th e same time.  In that context, he reiterated the 
importance of the Special Session playing a supervisory role in ensuring, among other things, that the overlap of meetings was limited, to enable the propo nents to effectively participate in the discussions.  
He said that his delegation preferred the work being carried out in informal meetings and 
consultations.  He also supported the point made  by the representative of Brazil that organizing 
meetings in different formats and with  different groups would be useful.   
34. The Chairman
 said that discussions on the Agreement-specific proposals would only be 
constructive if Members were willing to review the proposals with a view to finding the best solution 
to addressing the underlying concerns that had been  raised in the proposals.  Flexibility from the 
Members in considering the underlying problems th at had been raised, as well as from the proponents 
in being willing to consider alternate ways of  addressing those underlying challenges, would be 
necessary if real progress was to be made.   
35. The representative of Cuba  said that her delegation was willi ng to constructively engage in 
any efforts that would lead to fulfilling the Doha  Mandate.  She said that some views had been 
expressed on the way forward in terms of whet her the Agreement-specific proposals and the 
cross-cutting issues should be addressed in paralle l.  Her delegation believed that work on the 
Agreement-specific proposals would also result in possible solutions to the cross-cutting issues.  
Some views that had been expressed by Members were contradictory to what had been agreed to in 
the July Decision.  It was clear that the Agre ement-specific proposals had to be addressed by a 
specified date.  For that reason, her delegation felt th at it would be better to deal with the cross-cutting 
issues at a later stage as difficulties could arise in  addressing those issues.  She said that Members 
needed to review the objectives of S&D and dedicate mo re time to dealing with the systemic issues.   
36. The representative of Uganda  said that his delegation felt that whatever was agreed to by the 
Christmas break should be of value to developing countries.  His delegation agreed with a number of 
points that had been raised by many of the developing country Members.  The mandate in 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declarati on was what should govern the work on S&D.  The 
mandate contained in the July Decision was merely a reiteration of that mandate.  He insisted that all 
the Agreement-specific proposals needed to be ad dressed.  His delegation could not agree to any a 
priori understanding that the Category III proposals would not be addressed.  This was in the context 
of what one Member had said in relation to th e discussions on the Category III proposals having been 
exhausted and that it might not be possible to make progress on those issues.  He said that his delegation was flexible on the approach the Chai rman might wish to take, whether addressing the 
Agreement-specific proposals before, or in paralle l with the cross-cutting issues.  His delegation 
agreed that the Chairman should hold informal cons ultations with the various groups so that by the 
time Members met as a whole they would have made some progress in coming up with agreeable  TN/CTD/M/17 
 Page 13 
 
 
language.  The Chairman had mentioned that in  some cases there were differences even amongst 
developing countries.  That was why he believed the Chairman should carry out consultations with 
those groups of Members.  In his opinion, he belie ved that if the developed countries showed some 
flexibility then progress might be made. With respect  to the Category II proposals, he said that it was 
perhaps important to consider the suggestion that ha d been made by the representative of Kenya.  He 
said that the problem with the bodies to which th e Category II proposals had been referred, was that 
they tended to focus on their work as a whole,  because of which the S&D deadlines often got 
overlooked.  It was therefore important to ensure th at those bodies prioritised their S&D work so as to 
meet the deadline that had been set.  He did not thin k that merely instructing the Chairpersons of those 
bodies to intensify their work would be sufficient.   That was especially the case where different 
officers from the same delegation dealt with S&D i ssues in different bodies, and very often did not 
have the same instructions. 
37. The Chairman  said that he had heard Members say that they were willing to discuss all the 
issues but that progress could only be made if Memb ers began to develop a creative approach to the 
way they addressed those issues.  He  was encouraged by some of the suggestions that had been made 
about how Members could approach their work on tho se issues.  He said that the mandate was clear in 
that all the issues needed to be addressed and if Me mbers tackled those issues in the way they had in 
the past, they were unlikely to make progress.  
38. The representative of Argentina  said that with respect to the Category I and III 
Agreement-specific proposals, the idea of clusteri ng those proposals and seeing what they might have 
in common could be useful.  Taking that approach  was innovative and might allow Members to make 
some progress.  Members of course would have to agree on the criteria used for clustering but that 
was a matter that could be worked out.  He agreed that Members needed to take a step back and make 
an effort to understand other members' positions and the underlying reasons for those positions.  He 
said that Members should be willing to make some  adjustments and change  the emphasis in some 
areas of the proposals.  That, without changing the substance of the proposals, might enable Members 
to reach consensus on some of the proposals.  With  respect to Category II proposals, he said that he 
agreed with those Members that had stated that the Special Session should maintain a supervisory 
role.  He said that his delegation was supportive of  the proposal made by the representative of Kenya 
that if no progress was made on those proposals then  the Special Session could consider dealing with 
the proposals itself.  He went on to say that  the question of addressing the Agreement-specific 
proposals and cross-cutting issues in parallel had been raised.  As the representative of Kenya had said 
the Agreement-specific proposals had been given a certai n degree of priority in the July Decision.  He 
said that the July Decision also mentioned that work  was needed to be carried out on the cross-cutting 
issues.  A number of Members had emphasised the im portance of dealing with the cross-cutting issues 
as that may help in making progress on the Agreemen t-specific proposals.  If that was the case, then 
his delegation would not have a problem in a ddressing the Agreement-specific proposals and the 
cross-cutting issues in parallel.  However, if that  was not the case and work on the cross-cutting issues 
was likely to further complicate Members' work, th en Members should avoid dealing with those two 
issues in parallel.  He also agreed with the re presentative of Brazil that Members should undertake 
further work in informal meetings and in different  formats, periodically providing an opportunity to 
Members to take stock in formal meetings. 
39. The representative of Hong-Kong, China  said that she hoped that her delegation's silence 
would not be taken as a lack of interest in the di scussion that Members were having.  It was certainly 
not a lack of readiness to engage constructively in any further discussions.  She said that listening to 
the discussion her delegation sensed that there wa s  general agreement on how Members should 
organise their work.  Her delegation could go along with the clear and practical approach that had 
been suggested by the representative of Malaysia.   
40. The representative of Costa Rica  said that his delegation was flexible with respect to the 
Special Session's work plan.  His delegation suppor ted the positions of the delegations of Colombia TN/CTD/M/17 
Page 14  
 
and Brazil who had spoken about the need for work being carried out in informal meetings.  His 
delegation felt that it would be positive if progr ess could be made in the bodies to which the 
Category II proposals had been referred.  He said that  the representative of Canada had referred to its 
proposal in the SPS Committee.  That was a signifi cant breakthrough that could serve as an example 
for other Committees.  He said that there were diffe rent ways of approaching the work on S&D and 
the delegations of Peru and Ecuador, whose statemen ts his delegation endorsed, had alluded to that.  
Developing countries were also interested in pur suing what had been termed as the offensive 
approach on S&D, which was sometimes not so evid ent in the discussions.  He agreed that Members 
needed to ensure a North-South dialogue as well as  a dialogue between developing countries.  Both 
were equally important.  He said that all developing countries should benefit from S&D without any 
discrimination and as far as his delegation was c oncerned this was very important and Members 
needed to work on the basis of that fundamental principle.   
41. The representative of the United States
 said she wished to clarify some of her earlier remarks.  
In relation to the Category III proposals, she had said that Members needed to be practical and 
recognise the fact that there were unyielding divergences of view, not just North-South, but even 
among developing countries.  What her delegation had suggested, was that Members could let that 
concrete wall stop them or choose to go around it by  accepting that they differed.  Members needed to 
begin trusting one another and not  immediately interpret statements with the most negative 
connotation possible.  All Members had shown a po sitive spirit and willingness to work together. Her 
delegation was part of that process and hoped that others would see its remarks as constructive and 
positive, as they were meant to be.  She said that  the possibility of revisiting the 28 proposals on 
which Members had reached an in-principle agreem ent had been mentioned.  While she understood 
that the Chairman did not wish to discuss them, her delegation wished to support the representative of 
Japan which had said that Members had reached a broad agreement on those proposals and therefore 
did not wish to see them reopened.  On the ques tion of the cross-cutting issues she said that her 
delegation agreed with others that there were some  proposals that could be discussed in the context of 
some of the cross-cutting issues.  The cross-cutting issues carried the potentia l to ensure that the 
overall results of the DDA were coherent, practical  and effective.  Beginning a discussion in parallel 
on issues like the Monitoring Mechanism, in terms of  what could be monitored, what were the key 
elements involved;  why would it be useful to m onitor;  elaborating the decision that Members had 
already taken;  would all be helpful in that rega rd.  Ultimately, Members would need to have some 
structure which pulled all the S&D components together, and beginning a discussion on architecture 
could be helpful.  Her delegation agreed with othe rs that while Members had a July deadline, it would 
be useful to find a way to ensure that discussions on the cross-cutting  issues advanced as well.  Her 
delegation was willing to sit down with other Members, developed and developing, to consider 
cross-cutting issues for example, like the Monitoring Mechanism.  With respect to the individual 
proposals, she said that paragraph 44 of the Doha  Ministerial Declaration mandated Members to 
review the existing S&D provisions and make them more precise, effective and operational.  In her 
delegation's view, that did not necessarily translate into an agreement on the individual proposals that had been tabled.  There were other ways that Me mbers could consider making the existing provisions 
more precise.  She said that the Chairman's appr oach was perhaps the best way of finding a way 
forward and her delegation would keep an open and flexible mind and hoped that others would do the 
same.   
42. The representative of Switzerland
 said that she had listened with  interest to the constructive 
proposals made by Members.  Some Members had ra ised concern about dealing with the cross-cutting 
issues and the Agreement-specific proposals in paralle l.  She felt that the Committee had little time to 
argue over such issues but instead n eeded to quickly take up the cons tructive ideas that had been put 
forward.  As it was, the Chairman had said th ere was no wall between the Agreement-specific 
proposals and the cross-cutting issues.  Nevertheless, her delegation did not agree with the 
suggestions of dealing with the cross-cutting issues at a later stage.  TN/CTD/M/17 
 Page 15 
 
 
43. The Chairman  said that he was pleased to note a number of points of convergence.  He 
believed that Members could make a breakthrough if the spirit of constructive engagement and 
willingness to find pragmatic solutions to the issues  continued to prevail in the discussion.  There 
were four points of convergence that he had noted.  First, it seemed that Members agreed that the 
Special Session should closely m onitor the work of the different bodies to which the Category II 
proposals had been referred and that he as the Chairm an of the Special Session should coordinate the 
work going on in those bodies, including by meeting the various Chairpersons of those bodies.  Second, although there had been some reservations about some of the Agreement-specific proposals, 
Members seemed to agree that they  needed to address the underlying development challenges that the 
Agreement-specific proposals were attempting to raise in order to find solutions to those problems.  
Third, it seemed that Members agreed that the prop osals needed to be addressed by clustering them 
around specific themes. He gave the example of thos e proposals which related to capacity constraints 
and technical assistance.  He said that that could be one theme which Members could consider more closely and find a useful way of conceptualizi ng and addressing the underlying problem.  Members 
felt that that would also lead to a discussion on the cross-cutting issues, because the thematic clusters 
would relate to one or the other of the cross-cutting i ssues that had been put forward.  He said that the 
intention was to formulate pragmatic ways of iden tifying the problems rather than to develop new 
philosophies on specific areas that S&D had raised over th e years.  So rather than adopt an ideological 
approach, Members needed to take a pragmatic a nd problem-solving approach to those issues.  How 
Members formulated the informal negotiating process was something they would have to think about.  
Fourth, there seemed to be a feeling that some pr ogress should be made as quickly as possible.  He 
said that while the Christmas break  was too near to expect any si gnificant progress, Members could 
consider harvesting whatever progress was made in cluding possibly harvesting some of the proposals 
that had already been agreed to in principle.  If there was any convergence on the cross-cutting issues 
then that too could be added.  
44. The representative of Malaysia
 said that the Chairman had mentioned a number of points of 
convergence.  These were not necessarily points of consensus.  Although there was some consensus 
on some of the points there was clearly no clear consensus on the details.  She said that Members should not forget that the July Decision had mandated the completion of the review of all the outstanding Agreement-specific proposals by July  2005.  The question was how to approach the 
remaining work in a way that addressed the concer ns of all Members.  Her delegation agreed that 
further consultations would need to be held.  There was consensus that the Special Session should 
proceed to address the Agreement-sp ecific proposals, but how to do that was the question.  Perhaps 
the best way would be to have furthe r consultations on how to proceed.   
45. The representative of Uganda
 said that the Chairman had cap tured the areas of convergence 
well.  He said that those areas of convergence w ould be useful in the next stage of informal 
consultations.  His delegation agreed that in  the process of discussing the way forward, the 
cross-cutting issues had also been touched upon and therefore it was perhaps not necessary to discuss 
them again, unless there were some Members which had serious concerns that they wished to raise.  
He said that he had forgotten to mention that many  of his African colleagues were not present at the 
meeting, not because they were not interested in th e subject, but because there was a retreat being held 
to discuss various issues, including development issues.   
46. The representative of Cuba  reiterated that her delegation be lieved that the Agreement-specific 
proposals be dealt with first.  She said that it wo uld be useful if an agreement could be reached 
quickly so that Members knew what was going to be discussed, in the future meetings. 
47. The representative of Canada  said that the Chairman had cap tured the areas of convergence 
among Members.  She said that it was clear that Me mbers did not wish to have a lengthy discussion 
on the cross-cutting issues at that point of the me eting.  However, it was also clear that many 
delegations such as her own were interested in en suring that those issues were addressed in parallel 
with the Agreement-specific proposals.  As long as that was ensured, her delegation would not mind TN/CTD/M/17 
Page 16  
 
starting to consider the underlying issues behind th e Agreement-specific proposals, and in the course 
of that also addressing some of the fundamental  cross-cutting issues that Members had raised. 
48. The representative of Kenya
 said that the Chairman had adequately captured the main areas of 
convergence and his delegation would inform the Af rican Group about the discussions that had taken 
place.  He said that there appeared to be con sensus on commencing work on the Agreement-specific 
proposals.  As he had mentioned earlier, there were  some proposals that related to specific issues 
which had prevented convergence, even though certa in Members had an inherent interest in those 
issues. He suggested that perhap s the Chairman begin consultations on those proposals in a smaller 
group.  This was necessary becau se there were some issues wher e the Chairman would need to 
consult among the developing countries and then consu lt with the larger Membership.  He said that he 
hoped that the cross-cutting issues would not ta ke away attention from the Agreement-specific 
proposals.  There were a number of cross-cutting issues that were pertinent and that even his 
delegation had raised, such as the transitional peri ods and technical assistance.  Even then his 
delegation's preference was to first address the Agreement-specific proposals. 
49. The representative of India  said that the way the Chairman had summarised saying that there 
were a number of points of convergence and not consensus, had been taken in that spirit.  He said that 
the Chairman had mentioned that he would attempt, including in consultation with the Secretariat, to 
find ways to develop a structure for future work.  His delegation would also consider ways in which 
Members could move constructively.  In this cont ext, he welcomed the offer by the Chairman to 
contact him and suggest alternate approaches that could add value to the work on S&D in terms of 
fulfilling the Special Session's mandate.  He had shared his delegation's view with respect to the 
cross-cutting issues and he agreed that making pr ogress in line with the Doha Mandate should be 
Members' guiding template. 
50. The representative of th e European Communities  said that he did not believe that there was 
any need for further discussions on the cross-cutti ng issues that afternoon.  He, however, requested 
that Members consider the European Communiti es' submissions contained in TN/CTD/W/13, 
TN/CTD/W/20 and TN/CTD/W/26 which contained so me of the broad themes and topics which his 
delegation believed were importa nt in supporting the process of assessing the Agreement-specific 
proposals.  That all went back to the key concer n which the Chairman had identified in his remarks 
that morning that Members should work to support th e fuller integration of developing countries into 
the multilateral trading system.  He said that he ha d taken note of the way the Chairman had presented 
the inter-relationship between the cross-cutting i ssues and the Agreement-specific proposals which 
was something that Members needed to reflect on and which demonstrated the point his delegation 
had been attempting to make, of the need to pursu e a mutually constructive relationship between the 
two areas of their work so as to ensure progress on all fronts.   
51. The Chairman  said that he appreciated Members constructive contributions and suggestions 
which had enabled progress to be made.  He noted th at the discussions were progressive in the sense 
that Members had added value instead of repeati ng points they had earlier made.  He hoped to hear 
from Members on how best they thought the matrix of thematic clusters for the Agreement-specific 
issues could be created.  He said that he would gi ve it some thought himself.  In conclusion, he said 
that it was his hope that Members could build u pon the positivity shown in the meeting and make 
some headway before the Christmas break.   
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
52. No issue was raised under Other Business. 
 
__________