RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/32 
9 January 2008 
 
 (08-0100) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Thirty-Second Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 7 DECEMBER 2007 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Thawat chai Sophastienphong (Thailand) 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ..............................................................................................1  
C. THE MONITORING MECHANISM ...................................................................................................7  
D. OTHER BUSINESS .........................................................................................................................8  
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting as contained in airgram WTO/AIR/3126 of 
26 November 2007 was adopted .   
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
2. The Chairman  informed Members that since the last formal meeting held on 28 September, he 
had been carrying out text-based discussions on seven of the 16 remaining Agreement-specific 
proposals, namely on proposal no. 13 on Article XVIII of the GATT, the two proposals on Article 10.3 of the Agreement on Sanitary an d Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the 
proposal on Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement a nd the three proposals on Article 3.5 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing.  The text-based discu ssions had continued on the basis of the revised 
language that had been put forward by the previous  Chairman at the meeting held in July 2007, and 
which appeared in Annex II of the last report of  the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (Special Session) to the General Counc il.  While Members were not quite there in terms 
of reaching an agreement, he believed that some progress had been made. 
3. He went on to brief Members on the status of  work on the Agreement-specific proposals.  
With respect to proposal no. 13 on GATT Article XV III, he recalled that, at the last formal meeting, 
the proponents had signalled their intention to ta ble a revised text on their proposal.  This was 
something he had considered encouraging since discussions on that proposal had been difficult.  
However, the proponents were yet to table the revi sed language and, as a result, he had not held any 
further consultations on the proposal.  He hoped that  the proponents would table the language soon, so 
as to provide Members adequate time to consider it.   
4. The representative of Egypt
 said that the African Group was still considering certain elements 
of the proposal and would revert to the Special  Session with concrete ideas as soon as possible. 
5. The Chairman  said that on proposal nos. 24 and 25 on Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement, 
Members had been considering revised language as a result of the various ideas that had been put TN/CTD/M/32 
Page 2  
 
  forth by Members.  The revised text was available at the back of the room, and he would briefly take 
Members through the changes contained therein.  He said that during the discussions, a number of 
Members had raised concerns with respect to the word  "eligibility" in the first sentence, stating that it 
implied the automatic granting of a request.  The prop onents had clarified that "eligible" related to the 
right of developing countries to seek exceptions  from their obligations under the SPS Agreement 
rather than the right to have th e exceptions granted.  In addition,  the proponents had pointed out that 
developing countries were already eligible to seek such exemptions and the first sentence merely 
reiterated that fact.  As a result, one Member, recognizing that the first sentence related to a 
substantive right, had suggested the insertion of a second sentence, which had been included in the 
text, to provide clarity of developing countries' pro cedural right to seek such requests.  Regarding the 
third sentence, he pointed out that it contained two changes.  The first was the insertion of "SPS" 
before Committee.  This did not ch ange the substance of the sentence and merely sought to add clarity 
that Members were referring to the SPS Committee.  The second change related to the insertion of the 
words "to such a request".  A number of Members we re of the view that the word "positive" relating 
to the consideration of the request, in some way prejudged the decision to be taken.  The proponents 
had clarified that "positive and e xpeditious consideration" related only to the consideration of the 
request, not to the decision to be taken.  To a ddress these concerns, he had inserted the words "to such 
a request" in order to provide clarity that "positive consideration" would be given to the request and 
then a decision taken as appropriate.  Suggestions ha d also been made to delete "as appropriate" as 
some Members felt that it did not add value to th e sentence and implied that the Committee might not 
take a decision.  However, other Members preferred to retain it.  The final change related to the 
insertion in the last sentence of the phrase "either b ilaterally or through the ap propriate international 
organisations".  This wording had been taken di rectly from Article 9 of the SPS Agreement and had 
been proposed in order to be consistent with wh at already existed in the SPS Agreement on technical 
assistance.  A number of Members had raised concerns with respect to the last sentence, stating that it 
implied an obligation on the part of Members to facilitate technical assistance.  The proponents had 
clarified that the sentence did not seek to make the provision of technical assistance mandatory.  
Instead, it sought to ensure that the technical assistance to be pr ovided was targeted and directly 
linked to the request.  There were still some Memb ers which remained concer ned and wished to see 
the sentence further revised.  On this issue, the Chairman informed Members that that proposal had 
also been brought up at the informal meeting on special and differential treatment (S&D) that had 
taken place in the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Committee) on 
16 October 2007.  Since there were currently no  procedures in place for seeking time-limited 
exceptions with respect to obligations under the SPS Agreement in th e SPS Committee, some 
Members had requested that the Committee consider the need to put in place such procedures.  
Without specific procedures in place, these Members found it difficult to agree to a time-frame by 
which the SPS Committee should take decisions on such  requests.  The Chairman did not believe that 
the need for the SPS Committee to come up with  those procedures should prevent Members from 
moving forward on these proposals.  In his view, Me mbers had made considerable progress on those 
proposals and the revised language attempted to address the concerns that had been raised.  He urged 
Members to remain flexible when  approaching those issues.   
6. He went on to say that, on proposal no. 79 re lating to Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement, 
significant divergences still existed.  He recalled that the proponent, India, had tabled revised 
language on the proposal on the basis of which discussions had been taking place.  During the 
discussions, a number of Members had proposed am endments to the language.  However, the 
proponent felt that the proposed amendments would dilute its proposal.  It was clear from the discussions, that there were still fundamental diffe rences on the proposal.  A number of Members had 
felt that the proposal, in its current form, undermin ed their right to set scientifically-based SPS 
measures and implement them in a manner and time-fra me consistent with the risk that would have 
been identified.  They had also reiterated that they were not in a position to agree to a proposal that 
would introduce a mandatory time-frame to allo w Members to conform to new SPS measures.  A 
number of Members had stated that they had at tempted to address the concerns raised by the  TN/CTD/M/32 
 Page 3 
 
 
  proponent in the decision contained in paragra ph 3.1 of the Decision on Implementation-Related 
Issues and Concerns.  He said that in order to  make progress on the proposal, it was clear that 
Members would need to come up with alternate langua ge.  In this regard, the onus was not only on the 
proponents to come up with revised text, but also  for other Members which had concerns to propose 
alternative language.  He informed Members that the proposal had also been considered at the SPS 
meeting held in October 2007, and it was his understa nding that the Secretariat had been requested to 
provide some further clarifications on the different  time-frames related to th e notification as well as 
the implementation of such measures.   
7. The representative of India  said that the informal consultations on the proposal had provided a 
better understanding of the concerns of the va rious stakeholders.  Several developing and 
least-developed country (LDC) Members had noted th at Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement had not 
been implemented in a satisfactory manner.  One of the reasons for ineff ective implementation was 
the way in which the provision had been drafte d.  Unless the provision contained a specific 
time-frame for developing countries to comply  with new SPS measures, it would remain a 
non-implementable best endeavour clause.  The obj ective of his delegation's proposal was based on 
practical problems faced by exporters when the time- frame for complying with onerous and expensive 
SPS measures had led to restrictions and virtual denial of market acces s.  The worst affected had been 
exporters from small-and medium-sized enterprises  from developing and least-developed countries.  
The intention of the proposal was to provide at l east six months for developing country Members to 
comply with restrictive and non-liberalizing SPS measures.  This time-period was required for 
exporters to adapt to the new requirements of impo rting countries, and was critical if SPS measures 
were not to act as non-tariff barriers.  He pointed  out that emergency measures were different from 
what the proposal was seeking and were separa tely provided for under the SPS Agreement.  The 
proposal was also not applicable to liberalizing measures.  He said that Article XX of the GATT 
categorically stated that self-determined norms s hould not be discriminatory in nature or used as 
disguised protectionism.  The Doha Declarati on clearly recognized the special needs of the 
developing and least-developed coun tries and urged WTO Members to consider them.  Paragraph 44 
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration stated that "... We therefore agree that all special and differential 
treatment provisions shall be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more 
precise, effective and operational.  In this connec tion, we endorse the work programme on special and 
differential treatment set out in the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns" .  There 
was, therefore, no reason why the existing flexibilit y contained in Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement, 
together with paragraph 3.1 of the Decision on Implementation Related Issu es and Concerns, could 
not be reviewed to make the provision more preci se, effective and operational.  Keeping in mind the 
essence of the development dimension of the Doha Round, he urged Members to provide constructive 
suggestions to effectively address the genui ne concerns of developing countries. 
8. The representative of Pakistan  supported the statement made by the representative of India.  
She said that the amendments that had been proposed by other Members would not address 
developing country Member s' concerns.  Of the remaining Agreement-specific proposals, the proposal 
on Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement was one in whic h her delegation had great interest.  In that 
regard, she appealed to Members to show some flexibility.  She said that her capital had provided 
information on instances where new SPS measures of  a non-emergency nature had led, not only to 
stopping exports, but also to their confiscation.  In these cases, exporters had had no forum for 
redressal.  Some Members sought clarification as to why no developing country Member had sought 
recourse to Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  She sa id that, in the past, her Government had chosen 
to address the issue bilaterally because exporters in Pakistan did not have adequate resources and 
could therefore not wait long periods to get their gr ievances addressed.  In addition, they would only 
seek recourse to the WTO if they were certain that  they would get results.  As yet, that kind of 
confidence had not been established.  The use of the word "normally" as contained in paragraph 3.1 of 
the Decision on Implementation Related Issues and C oncerns, did not provide the assurance that the 
WTO would address the problems faced by developing countries.   TN/CTD/M/32 
Page 4  
 
  9. She went on to give an example relating to Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement where 
exporters in Pakistan had experienced some problems.   It related to the return of certain products, 
including goat, sheep, kessin, gelatine and bone m eal from the European Union (EU).  The EU had 
expressed concern with respect to compliance wi th SPS measures relating to "bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy" (BSE).  As a result of the disease, Pakistan had been placed in category two, whereas 
in reality, these products were free from the disease and not a single case of BSE had taken place 
since its diagnosis in Europe.  Her Government could have defended its pos ition and negotiated, but 
in the meantime, exports from Pakistan had been st opped.  It was in these types of cases that it was 
important to have specific language in the proposal s that could address such concerns.  She said that 
she would provide more examples of instances in wh ich exports had been affected by the introduction 
of such new SPS measures. 
10. The representative of Australia
 agreed with the Chairman's as sessment of the status of the 
negotiations on the proposal relating to Article 10. 2 of the SPS Agreement.  She did not intend to 
recall in detail her delegation's interest in the issu e, but would briefly respond to a number of points 
that the representative of India had made.  The repres entative of India was correct in stating that there 
was no reason why Members could not review the exis ting flexibility contained in Article 10.2 of the 
SPS Agreement and paragraph 3.1 of the Decision on Implementation Related Issues and Concerns 
with a view to making it more precise, effective and operational.  Members had in fact been reviewing the provision.  The key issue was the kind of outc ome that was possible as a result of that review, 
taking into account the nature and purpose of the SPS Agreement.  He r delegation was not certain that 
a rules-based solution that would establish a mandato ry minimum time-frame was in fact possible.  
Any proposal that sought to grant developing countr ies flexibility in complying with Australia's SPS 
measures would need to entail decisions being made on a case-by-case basis.  Her delegation was not saying that it was not possible to achieve something in that area, but Members needed to think more 
creatively about it.  At the last consultations, the representative of India had raised a number of 
questions that her capital was in the process of addressing.  She said that her delegation looked 
forward to continuing work on that proposal. 
11. The representative of China
 supported the proposal tabled by India stating that revising the 
existing provision would result in more precise S&D to developing countries.  Some of the suggestions that had been proposed, including ma intaining "normally" before "no less that six 
months", and changing "shall" to "may", would di lute the principle and objective of the Doha 
Mandate.   
12. The representative of Egypt
 said that the main reason for addressing the proposals was to 
achieve a concrete result.  In order to achieve th is result, it was important for Members to come up 
with clear language which is what they were atte mpting to do in the Special Session.  The proposal 
that had been tabled by India, and which his dele gation supported, was based on practical experiences.  
India had attempted to table language that reflect ed and would address those problems.  Article 10.2 
of the SPS Agreement referred to the granting of longer time-frames for developing country Members 
to comply with new SPS measures.  This was someth ing that already existed in other areas of the SPS 
Agreement, and it was important to understand why Members had accepted mandatory language in 
other areas of the SPS Agreement but would not accept this when it related to Article 10.2 of the SPS 
Agreement.  In response to whether the minimum six months time-frame would apply in every case, 
he said that inserting the words "upon request" in the proposal would help clarify that six months 
would not be applied in all cases, and that it w ould depend on whether a Member required six months 
or required less than six months to comply.  Exporters would obviously wish to comply in the earliest time possible to ensure that their exports would reach  the importing markets.  It was important to have 
an outcome on that issue and harvest the efforts that Members had been making over the past few 
years.  He urged those Members which still had conc erns to table alternative language.  He said that 
his delegation was open to discussing any idea th at would serve the purpose of addressing the 
problem.  At the same time, it was important not to dilute the objective of the proposal.    TN/CTD/M/32 
 Page 5 
 
 
  13. The representative of the United States  agreed with the Chairman's assessment of Members' 
positions on that proposal, and agreed with the repr esentative of Australia that it was important for 
Members to remain practical with regard to what could be achieved.  Her delegation believed that it 
was already meeting its obligations  under Article 10.2 and felt that the granting of longer time-frames 
for compliance should be considered on a case-by-case basis.  Best efforts ha d been made to allow 
Members to comply with new SPS measures and her delegation was committed to continue to make 
those efforts.  Given how long Members had been discussing that proposal, and that it had been categorized as a Category III proposal, her delegati on did not believe that an outcome was possible. 
14. The representative of Canada
 said that his delegation's understanding was that the proposal 
was seeking to stipulate a minimum time-frame for compliance which would take away the discretion 
of the SPS Committee from determining when to provide such exceptions.  This was something that 
his delegation felt strongly about in terms of the need to make such decisions on the basis of scientific 
principles and also on a case-by-case basis.  He noted  that Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement and as 
interpreted by paragraph 3.1 of the Decision on Impl antation Related Issues and Concerns stated that 
normally no less than six months would be granted fo r compliance with new measures.  In effect, this 
meant that the SPS Committee, based on a scientific re view of such needs, could determine the time 
to be given to a country to comply.  It could be the case that six months would in fact be the stipulated time-frame granted for such exceptions.  His dele gation's concern remained that of establishing 
minimum time-frames which would essentially take away  the basis of scientific review by experts in 
the SPS Committee.  Sharing practic al examples, as had been propo sed by the representative of 
Pakistan, would be useful in moving discussions forward.   
15. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that his delegation remained optimistic 
that it was possible to find a mutually acceptable outcome on the proposal which it understood was driven by genuine export concerns experienced by the proponents.  His delegation's understanding 
was that the proposal created two new substantive oblig ations.  First, it turned the notion of providing 
a grace period into an absolute obligation by ch anging "should" to "shall" and, second, it provided an 
absolute obligation of a six-month grace period.  Fo r his delegation, the proposal went a little too far 
in that it created too much rigidity for regulators.  Particularly, if the six-month time-frame for compliance was an absolute obligation, where it would have a counter-productive effect of 
encouraging regulators in many circumstances to follo w a more urgent procedure rather than one that 
could be phased in.  His delegation therefore did not favour an obligatory six-month grace period.  A 
compromise could be found if it were to be a normati ve requirement, that was, to say that six months 
would be normally accorded.  He noted that in ot her WTO Agreements, for example in the technical 
barriers to trade (TBT) area, there were indicativ e time-frames between the adoption of and entering 
into force of regulations.  These were guidelines that had a strong presumptive effect but that were not absolute obligations.  Some guidance could be take n from these agreements in setting a norm of six 
months but not an absolute obligation.  He aske d the representative of India whether the requirement 
to provide a grace period of six months would apply to all Members, including the developing country 
Members.  His delegation was also keen to receive more information on the practical examples that had been mentioned by the representative of Pakistan. 
16. The representative of India
 clarified that if the proposal was to be adopted, it would relate to 
all Members, including developing country Members. 
17. The representative of China  said that his delegation believed that best efforts had been made 
by developed countries to enable countries to comp ly with their SPS measures.  His delegation also 
understood, to a certain extent, the view of some  Members that the granting of such time-frames 
should be considered on a case-by-case basis.  Howeve r, Members needed to consider the proposal in 
the context of the whole SPS Agreement, which al ready provided well-elaborated protection for 
importing countries.  The first sentence of the pr oposal already contained a conditionality which 
stated that the time-frame of six months would only be accorded in cases when the appropriate level TN/CTD/M/32 
Page 6  
 
  of SPS protection allowed for the scope of the phased  introduction of new SPS measures.  In his view, 
this balance addressed both the concerns of the deve loping countries from an exporter's point of view 
and the developed countries from an importer's point of view.  His delegation could, therefore, agree 
to the proposal and, as a developing country, was prepared to grant a grace-period of six months for other developing countries if that was warranted. 
18. The Chairman
 said that he had not held any discussions on proposal nos. 28 to 30 relating to 
Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing b ecause he believed, as had the previous Chairman, 
that there was a fair degree of convergence on tho se proposals with only one set of brackets remaining 
in the text.   
19. The representative of the European Communities  said that, as noted by the Chairman, the 
language on those proposals contained one outstanding issue in brackets.  In that respect, his 
delegation did not feel in any way that the prop osal had been agreed upon.  Therefore, Members 
needed to consider the proposals again and he hoped the opportunity to consider them would arise in the future informal consultations.   
20. The Chairman
 said that it was clear that Members would need to continue working together to 
see whether they could come up with language that w ould take care of all Members' concerns.  That 
would entail considering alternate language whic h would accommodate the needs that had been 
expressed.  He would hold further small group consulta tions to close the remaining gaps and keep the 
wider Membership updated on any developments.  He said that where Members had come up with revised language, that language was not agreed a nd merely reflected work in progress.  On the 
remaining 9 Agreement-specific proposals, no Member had yet put forward any new ideas or 
language, therefore, those proposals would remain aside.   
21. He went on to say that on the Category II proposals, he had sent a letter to all the 
Chairpersons of the bodies to which the Category II proposals had been referred.  He had intended to 
meet with the Chairs personally, but with the numbe r of meetings that had been taking place, he felt 
that it had not been the most convenient time for many of them.  In his letter, he had reiterated 
Members' concerns with the lack of progress on th e Category II proposals, and had requested that the 
Chairs indicate whether they believed that the issues  that had been raised in the proposals would be 
addressed as part of the work currently underway in  their respective bodies.  That would enable him 
to identify those issues that were not being addr essed as part of the ongoing work and consider how 
Members could expedite progress on them.  From th e various Chairs' reports, copies of which had 
been made available at the back of the room, it was clear that, in the majority  of cases, there had been 
very little developments on the proposals since the Chairs had last reported.  In some of the 
negotiating areas, the Chairpersons had indicated that a number of issues raised in the proposals 
formed an integral part of the ongoing negotiations.  In the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement 
Body, the Chairman had informed him that Members had been discussing a revised joint proposal by 
a group of developing countries which took into account the ongoing consideration of the Category II 
proposals.  In addition, the African Group had reite rated that it was working towards tabling revised 
text of its earlier proposal, including aspects relate d to the Category II proposals.  In the Special 
Session of the Council for Trade in Services, the Ch airman reported that the proponents had indicated 
that they would be tabling a revised proposal, wh ich he believed was to be addressed at the meeting 
held on the previous day, as well as at a meeting to  be held on 17 December.  He was certain that the 
Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for Trade and Services would provide more details of 
developments, if any, at the upcoming Genera l Council meeting.  In the SPS Committee, the 
Chairman had reported that Members had been considering a revised proposal by Egypt on 
Article 10.1 of the SPS Agreement.  The proposal was considered at meetings held in June and 
October.  However, a number of Members still had c oncerns and the proposal would be considered at 
future meetings of the Committee.  In the TRIM s Committee, he recalled that in April 2007, the 
proponents had submitted further revised text on th eir TRIMs S&D proposals taking into account the  TN/CTD/M/32 
 Page 7 
 
 
  concerns that had been expressed by some dele gations.  Some Members had expressed support and 
interest for the new formulations, while others ha d repeated their opposition despite the new wording.  
These proposals were discussed at an informal meeting held on 26 October 2007, at which several 
Members reiterated that while they were prepared to consider additional flexibilities in the TRIMs' 
area, they felt that the granting of such flexibiliti es should be considered on a case-by-case basis.  At 
the formal meeting held on 1 November 2007, Ke nya informed Members th at the African Group had 
gone as far as it could on the issue, but was open to hear any new drafting ideas from other Members on their proposals.  He noted that that no feedback  had been received from the Chairman of the TRIPS 
Council because, as Members would recall, at th e May 2006 General Council meeting, the TRIPS 
Chair had indicated that the TRIPS Council had authorized him to report that:  (i) the situation with 
regard to the Category II proposals referred to the Council remained as reported in July 2005 in 
document IP/C/36;  and (ii) the TRIPS Council re iterated its earlier recommendation as reproduced in 
that document; and (iii) no further action was othe rwise required on the proposals referred to the 
Council.  He said that the Chairpersons had assured him of their continued support towards taking the 
work on the Category II proposals forward, and he inte nded to continue working closely with them to 
find a solution to those issues.  Each of the Chai rpersons would be reporting to the upcoming meeting 
of the General Council on the status of the proposals.   
22. He went on to address the duty-free quota-free (D FQF) market access issue.  It was his 
understanding that the LDCs had been pursuing th e issue in the Committee on Agriculture and the 
Negotiating Group on Market Access (NAMA), as well as addressing the issues of rules of origin.  He 
remained at the LDCs' disposal as and when they fe lt that his involvement could help take the issue 
forward.   
23. The representative of Zambia
 said that the LDCs had been pur suing the issues related to the 
implementation of the decision in the Committee on Agriculture and NAMA, though the majority of the discussions had taken place in the latter.  A num ber of bilateral discussions had also taken place 
on the market access and rules of origin submissions th at the LDCs had tabled earlier.  However, there 
were still a number of issues that needed to be addressed, such as the phasing  in of the remaining 
3 per cent.  The provision of market access for 97 per cent of LDC exports at the tariff-line level was a minimum and, in that regard, she urged Member s to take the necessary steps to phase in the 
remaining 3 per cent.  Discussions on rules of orig in were taking place with the various experts from 
different delegations.  She urged those Memb ers that had expressed their willingness towards 
implementing the decision to do so.  She reiterated that the LDCs wished to  see the DFQF market 
access issue remain on the agenda of the Special Session. 
24. The representative of Bangladesh
 said that the LDCs were actively engaged with the 
developed countries regarding the LDCs' exports that would be provided DFQF market access under 
the 97 per cent, as well as the roadmap for phasing in the remaining 3 per cent.  Positive discussions 
on the issue of rules of origin had taken place and th e LDCs were optimistic that they would get some 
positive results in that area.  He said that the LDCs  appreciated the efforts that were being made by 
some developing countries to provide DFQF market access to the LDCs.  In this respect, he urged 
those Members to implement the decision as soon as was possible. 
25. The Chairman  reiterated the importance of ensuring the effective implementation of the 
decision and urged Members to continue making ef forts towards implementing it in a manner that 
would facilitate increased market access to the LDCs .  He encouraged the stakeholders to continue 
meeting with one another to address the issues that remained of concern to the LDCs.   
C. THE MONITORING MECHANISM  
26. The Chairman  said that discussions on the Monitoring Mechanism had continued on the basis 
of the non-paper that was put forward by the previous Chairman at the meeting held in July 2007, and TN/CTD/M/32 
Page 8  
 
  which was contained in Annex III of the last report of  the Special Session to the General Council.  He 
was pleased to say that Members had been able to fi ne-tune some of the elements contained therein.  
The revised language on the Monitoring Mechanism had also been made available at the back of the 
room.  The first change in the non- paper related to the deletion of " as appropriate" in sub-bullet 2 of 
bullet 5.  Members had agreed to the deletion of the phrase as they had considered it as not adding any 
value.  The second change related to the insertion of the notion of reviewing the structure of the 
Mechanism "every three years".  Reviewing the st ructure of the mechanism every three years had 
been proposed to provide a clear time-frame as to  when such a review would take place.  During the 
most recent discussions on the Monitoring Mechanism,  a number of Members had stated that three 
years might be too rigid a time-frame and that perhap s that should be extended or made more flexible.  
This was something that Members were still consid ering.  In addition, there were some Members 
which were still concerned with certain elements in the non-paper.  A number of Members felt that 
there was a need to fine-tune bullet 2 of the stru cture.  Bullets 2 and 3 of the scope were also 
considered too broad and it had been proposed that  they be removed.  These Members had suggested 
keeping the scope in line with the Doha Mandate.  Ho wever, others wished to see the scope remain as 
it was.  The issue of whether the monitoring should  be carried out in dedicated sessions or in a 
sub-committee was still a matter of discussion.  He  said that it was clear that on the Monitoring 
Mechanism, further consultations were needed  before Members could reach convergence on its 
elements.  The idea was to come up with a structure and scope that was clear, but not too prescriptive.  If Members got bogged down in including too much detail on each of the elements then they could 
have difficulty in reaching an agreement.  In add ition, there was a risk of making the Mechanism too 
rigid rather than flexible and forward looking, something that a large number of Members believed 
was an important feature if the Mechanism was to be efficient.  He informed Members that the 
Secretariat had put together a compilation of the current, as well as proposed monitoring mechanisms 
in place on S&D in the different WTO bodies.  The compilation had been made available as an 
advance copy at the back of the room and would be sent for distribution during the course of the 
following week.  He pointed out that the compilation which had been  put together on the basis of 
inputs from the Secretaries of the different WTO bodies, related only to those mechanisms which 
were in place or which were being pr oposed to monitor S&D provisions.   
27. Before concluding the meeting, the Chairman
 said that at the informal Head of Delegation's 
meeting held the previous week, the Chairman of  the Trade Negotiations Committee had stated that 
the tabling of the texts on agriculture and NAMA was expected at the end of January.  That in turn, 
was expected to lead to the establishment of the modalities about a month later.  While securing 
agreement on the modalities would remain Members' primary focus, the Director-General had made it 
clear that once there was an agreement on modalities,  a new phase would open with three components 
that could run in parallel.  That was, scheduli ng agriculture and NAMA, tabling final offers and 
scheduling services and finalizing the other rule-making parts of the negotiations.  It was, therefore, 
important that the Special Session keep up with the pace of the wider process and be in a position to 
table a package when the time came.  He announced that this was the last Special Session meeting of 
the year, and his intention was to hold small group m eetings in the new year.  The idea would be to 
build on the progress that had been made on the Agreement-specific proposals and the Monitoring 
Mechanism, with the hope of coming up with a package on S&D.  As and when Members made 
progress, open-ended meetings would be held to update the wider Membership, as well as give them 
an opportunity to feed into the process.  He info rmed Members that he would be submitting his report 
to the upcoming General Council meeting on 18 D ecember.  The report would provide a factual 
account of the work that had been carried out thus far on all aspects of the Special Session's mandate.   
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
28. No matter was raised under other business. 
_________