RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/43 
28 February 2011  
 
(11-0982) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Forty-Third Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 13 JANUARY 2011 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Shahid Bashir (Pakistan) 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON .................................................................................................1  
C. MONITORING MECHANISM – CONSIDERATION OF REV .4 OF THE CHAIR 'S NON -PAPER .................2  
D. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATION FROM CUBA (TN/CTD/W/32)............................................6  
E. OTHER BUSINESS .........................................................................................................................8  
 
 A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The agenda, as contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/3681 of 17 December was adopted . 
B. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
2. The meeting was opened by the Director of the Development Division, as the outgoing 
Chairman of the Special Session of the Committ ee on Trade and Development (Special Session), 
Ambassador Thawatchai Sophastie nphong of Thailand was not availa ble that day.  Recalling the 
consensus reached among Members at the General Council meeting of 14 December 2010, on the 
nomination of Ambassador Shahid Bashir of Paki stan as Chairperson for the Special Session, the 
Director of the Development Division proposed  that Members confirm his appointment as 
Chairperson.  It was so agreed .  
3. The incoming Chairman thanked his predecesso r, Ambassador Thawatchai Sophastienphong, 
for his dedication and hard work and in providing lead ership in steering the negotiations to a level that 
would facilitate a possible agreement.  He also th anked Members for reposing confidence in him.  He 
stated that he would continue to make best effort s to carry forward the work of the Special Session 
and work with Members to develop consensus on all issues on the table. 
4. He noted that 2011 had begun against the backdrop of strong political signals by world 
leaders to conclude the Doha Round of nego tiations.  The small window of opportunity thus 
presented, suggested that the on-going Doha negotiati ons could possibly be concluded in 2011.  He 
urged Members to negotiate with an open mind so  as to narrow the remaining gaps and develop a 
package that would facilitate all Members, espec ially the developing and least-developed ones, to 
benefit from the multilateral trade regime.  Noting th at Members had witnessed significant shifts in 
red lines during the second half of 2010 in the sp ecial and differential treatment (S&D) Work 
Programme, the Chairman stressed the need to build  on the progress achieved.  He stated that he 
would strictly adhere to the principles of transpar ency and inclusiveness in his work.  He planned to 
continue the work in Special Session in small- group informal settings, mixed with, when necessary, 
Ambassador-level consultations in  variable geometry.  This process would be followed periodically TN/CTD/M/43 
Page 2  
 
  by open-ended and formal meetings to brief the wi der Membership on the status of the work, as well 
as, where possible, to take decisions.  He also st ated that as Chairman of the Special Session, he 
remained accessible and available to Members for bilateral or plurilateral consultations.  After 
developing consensus on elements of the Monitori ng Mechanism, he intended to take up the six 
Agreement-specific proposals, which had earlie r been discussed in the Special Session. 
C. 
MONITORING MECHANISM – CONSIDERATION OF REV .4 OF THE CHAIR 'S NON -PAPER  
5. The Chairman  reminded Members that on 16 December 2010, the outgoing Chairman had 
circulated Revision 4 (hereinafter referred to as Rev.4)  of his non-paper, in adva nce of the meeting, so 
as to allow Members the opportunity to examine its content, have inte rnal consultations and 
constructively prepare for the meeting.  The revi sed non-paper was based on pa rt on deliberations by 
Members in the Chairman's private informal consu ltations that he had in past weeks, as well as the 
Guiding Principles, agreed among the group of Ambassadors.  With that background, he proposed that Members express their views on the Chairman's Rev.4, section by section. 
6. Welcoming the revised non-paper as a good basis to continue work on the Monitoring 
Mechanism, the representative of Argentina
 stated that although it took into account elements of the 
Guiding Principles, there were still a series of questions and aspects whic h his delegation thought 
should be taken into account and reflected in the te xt.  The next step was to identify elements on 
which Members were close to con sensus, and then focus efforts on those on which work still needed 
to be done.  He believed that Rev. 4 should help Members to establish a Mechanism that reflected the 
spirit of Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
7. The representative of India  noted that his delegation attached high priority to the early 
establishment of a Monitoring Mechanism and felt th at development was an important aspect, not 
only of the Doha Round, but of all WTO Agreemen ts.  It was, therefore, important that S&D 
provisions were meaningful and effective so that the developing countries could benefit from them.  
There was need for the M onitoring Mechanism to regularly eval uate the utilization and effectiveness 
of S&D provisions, and if required, propose acti ons to strengthen and improve such provisions.  
Therefore, it was important that S&D provisions we re precise, effective and operational as recognized 
by Ministers at Doha.  The Chairman's Rev.4 of  16 December fell short of the essential elements 
mandated by Paragraph 44 of the D oha Declaration, as well as the De cision of the General Council of 
July 2002, on the establishment of a Monitoring M echanism.  India had substantive suggestions on the 
different elements of the Mechanism including on  the Preamble, Scope, Structure and Functions 
which it would share in the course of the small-gr oup informal consultations in the coming weeks.  
India hoped that Members would positively engage in discussions on the Monitoring Mechanism and 
make constructive contributions that reflected a strong commitment to the development aspect of the 
Doha Round. 
8. The representative of Egypt  said that the renewed sense of commitment among Members to 
shift into a higher gear was encouraging.  However,  the question remained as to how to deliver on the 
promise of development within a narrow window of  opportunity.  He believed that if Members were 
to have negotiating texts, in all tracks of negotia tions ready by Easter, they needed progress to be 
achieved swiftly on several fronts with the following pre-requisites;  first, Members needed to move 
away from posturing and negotiating strategies so th at negotiations could be brought to a successful 
conclusion;  second, political signals needed to tr ickle down and translate into realistic negotiating 
positions;  third, Members needed to stabilize the understandings and compromises reached over 
Category 1 Agreement-specific proposals;  and fourth, Members needed to have a better 
understanding on where they stood with respect to Category II Agreement-specific proposals;  fifth, 
on the Monitoring Mechanism, the premise of th eir consideration of Rev.4 was based on, among 
others, the parameters set out in the Doha  Ministerial Declaration, the Decision on 
Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, the recommendations and proposals of the African  TN/CTD/M/43 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Group in July 2002, the General Council's Decision of July 2002, the Guiding Principles devised by 
the Ambassadors' small group in November 2010, and finally the joint submission by Argentina, Brazil, China,  Egypt and India in December 2010,  which, he added, had been supported by many 
Members, including Pakistan;  Hong Kong, China and the LDC Group.  He also stated that Egypt would have substantive comments, reservations a nd suggestions on the different elements of the 
Mechanism as envisaged in the Chairman's Rev.4 of  16 December 2010, which would be conveyed in 
due course.  Finally, he hoped that considerati on would be given, when scheduling meetings to 
discuss the Monitoring Mechanism, to the resource c onstraints of small delega tions and proposed that 
any such meetings involve a broader representation of developing and least-developed Members, so 
that their views, interests and concerns were  taken into account in any final outcome on the 
Monitoring Mechanism. 
9. The representative of Australia
 stated that her delegation attached importance to the work of 
the Special Session, including in particular the ne gotiations on the Monitoring Mechanism, and that 
her delegation supported the progra mme of work that the Chair had outlined.  However, in her view, 
small-group meetings in variable geometries at the technical level provided the best avenue for 
making progress.  She agreed that ensuring in clusiveness and transparency through regular 
open-ended sessions was key to successful completion of the work at hand.  She also agreed that the 
negotiations could benefit, from time-to-time, from the involvement of Ambassadors.  However, she 
preferred to, first, have a full discussion on the Chairman's Rev.4 at technical level, before 
determining whether or not there was a need to br ing in the Ambassadors.  She considered Rev.4 of 
the Chairman's non-paper a useful basis for the on-going work in the Special Session on the 
Monitoring Mechanism as it appropriately reflect ed the delicate balance that was struck by 
Ambassadors in their informal small-group process and later endorsed by Members in the Special 
Session.  She also appreciated the efforts of the outgoing Chairman in transforming the Guiding 
Principles into Rev.4, and hoped that it would greatly facilitate Members' on-going work.   
10. The representative of the United States  stated that he had carefully reviewed the Chairman's 
Rev.4 of 16 December 2010 and believed that it was largely in line with the Guiding Principles.  
However, his delegation had some questions which needed to be clarified.  First, the term 
effectiveness was used both in the third bullet of the Preamble, in the first bullet under Scope and in 
the second bullet of the Guiding Principles.  It was not clear to his delegation as to how the effectiveness of S&D provisions would be measured.  Based on the third bullet in the Preamble of the 
Chairman's Rev.4, effectiveness appeared to relate to the ability of S&D provis ions to facilitate "the 
integration of developing and l east-developed Members into the multilateral trading system".  He 
believed that the best means for realizing the full benefits of the multilatera l system was through fuller 
participation and greater integration of Members into  the system.  In his view, if the S&D provisions 
facilitated achievement of this objective, then it c ould be a good measure of the effectiveness of these 
provisions.  He wished to ensure that that was al so the understanding of other Members on this issue.  
Secondly, his delegation expressed rese rvations to the use of the word "shall" in the third bullet which 
stated that "the CTD DS shall, as appropriate, pr opose actions, including to the General Council, to 
strengthen and improve the implementation of the re viewed S&D provisions".  It appeared to create 
the expectation that such action must be proposed.  He pointed out that the Guiding Principle from 
where the text had been drawn did not use the term  "shall".  While he recognized that the Special 
Session would have the ability to prop ose actions, he requested that the term "shall" be replaced with 
"may" or "can", given that the practice of proposi ng actions was not, and should not be mandatory.  
Thirdly, he noted that the idea of ensuring that  S&D provisions were also reviewed in the WTO 
bodies with technical expertise over the specific issu e or provision seemed to have been dropped from 
the text.  While he recognized that this specific is sue was not addressed in the Guiding Principles, his 
delegation continued to see utility in ensuring, as a first step, the involvement of technical bodies in 
any review of issues under their area of expertise.   He further noted that as Members had observed 
throughout the discussions in the Special Session on Agreement-specific proposals relating to the 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and Import Licen sing Agreements, it had been quite difficult for TN/CTD/M/43 
Page 4  
 
  non-technical experts from each Member to address tec hnical issues therein.  He wished to avoid a 
similar situation in the future in the review unde r the Monitoring Mechanism, and requested that the 
idea be reintroduced into the text.   
11. In addition, the representative of  the United States made some comments and raised questions 
on the Chairman's plans on future work in the Specia l Session.  He noted that the fax circulated to 
Members on 13 December 2010 had contained the upcoming schedule of the Special Session of 
Ambassadorial-level meetings on 21 January 2011 and 9 March 2011.  Given that the on-going 
meeting was the first opportunity for Members to meaningfully discuss the Chairman's Rev.4, he 
found it premature to involve Ambassadors in the delib eration at this stage, and requested that the 
Chairman continue meetings at the technical leve l in the foreseeable future.  He stressed that his 
delegation did not see the need to elevate the discussi on to Ambassador-level at that point.  Further, 
he noted that Members had not had the opportunity  to discuss the Agreement-specific proposals since 
20 July 2010 and requested the Chai rman to give an idea as to when he intended to take up the 
Agreement-specific proposals.  He continued to  believe that the technical nature of the 
Agreement-specific proposals would be best addressed in the relevant WTO bodies that were 
currently working on the Agreement-specific proposals.   However, in order to make progress in the 
Special Session, Members needed to ensure that the current text on Agreement-specific proposals 
accurately reflected the discussion thus far and that  any unresolved issues needed to be appropriately 
bracketed.   
12. The representative of Japan
 said that the Chairman's Rev.4 was a good basis for future work 
and that his delegation would be ready to make text-b ased comments.  He also st ated that the issue of 
sequencing needed to be further elaborated in th e text, based on the principle that the Monitoring 
Mechanism shall complement and not replace other relevant review mechanisms in other bodies of 
the WTO.  On the process, he st ated that the Chairman should continue his group consultations at 
technical level and that the time was not ripe for i nvolving the Ambassadors in the deliberations of the 
Special Session. 
13. The representative of Zambia  noted that the Chairman's Rev.4 was a good starting point for 
work ahead as it reflected a good balance between the Guiding Principles that emanated from the 
Ambassadors' brainstorming process and the work th at had been done hitherto by experts in the 
Special Session.  He indicated that his delegati on would make precise drafting suggestions during the 
course of small-group consultations.  However, he drew Members' attention to Paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Declaration which captured the objective the Monitoring Mechanism must achieve, i.e. to make 
S&D provisions more precise, effective and operati onal.  This Ministerial objective needed to be 
reflected in the Preamble and the body of the text.   
14. The representative of Brazil  stated that the Chairman's Rev. 4 captured many of the central 
elements that were present in the Guiding Principl es.  Moreover, it preserved some essential features 
of the previous non-papers by the Chair.  As such , even though he recognized that there was still room 
for perfecting the document, so that it could better reflect the mandate of the Monitoring Mechanism, 
he understood that it constituted a good basis for the continuation of text-based negotiations.  He 
emphasized that at the time when Members were committed to renewing and in tensifying their efforts 
to conclude the Doha Round, all Members needed to engage in the final stage of the negotiations with 
a constructive spirit, mindful of the centrality  of S&D in the Doha Development Agenda. 
15. The representative of the European Union  noted that she saw the Rev.4 as a genuine attempt 
to take account of the arduous and significant hard work that Members had unde rtaken in the Special 
Session.  Clearly, the work had benefited from the input of the Ambassadors' small-group process and 
recent discussions in informal settings where ope nings and convergence were achieved on a number 
of key elements.  She also indicated that her de legation would share substantive comments on the text 
in the small-group consultations in the coming weeks.  TN/CTD/M/43 
 Page 5 
 
 
  16. The representative of Ecuador  said that in Doha, Ministers decided that the S&D treatment 
provisions should be examined in order to make it  more effective, operational and precise.  That 
specific decision had led Members to establish a M onitoring Mechanism for those provisions.  It was 
therefore imperative for Members to ensure that an y such mechanism was indeed efficient and had the 
necessary characteristics to fulfil the Ministerial commi tment.  In his view, an efficient Monitoring 
Mechanism needed to have very specific objectives.  It was clear that Members wished to strengthen 
S&D provisions by making them more precise, effec tive and operational.  Secondly, it was important 
to elaborate the functions that the Monitoring Mech anism would be carrying out in order to achieve 
those objectives.  Members needed to go throug h periodical assessments of the efficiency and 
implementation of S&D provisions.  Third, Members n eeded to clearly define the material scope of 
action for the Monitoring Mechanism.  He stated that the scope must include the S&D provisions in 
WTO Agreements and the Decisions of the General Council. 
17. The representative of New Zealand  stated that Rev.4 faithfully  incorporated the elements 
contained in both the Guiding Principles agreed to by Ambassadors and the operational elements 
outlined in the Chairman's working paper.  The build ing blocks were on the table and those needed to 
be put into a text that was acceptable to all.  In her view, Rev.4 provided a clear basis to carry forward 
the work of the Special Session.  Accordingly, w ith text-based negotiations in mind, her delegation 
had prepared some paragraph-specific drafting sugg estions which she would share in the small-group 
informal consultations.  However, she highlighted so me of the main themes New Zealand had tried to 
address in its comments.  First, it was important to make clear that the Monitoring Mechanism was 
not in itself a single thing, with the autonomy to take action and decisions, but rather it would be a 
process to facilitate the examination of the impl ementation of S&D provisions.  The process could 
involve a number of activities, including meetings, preparation and considera tion of papers, etc.  
Therefore, it was appropriate to talk about "ac tivities" under the Mechanism.  Second, it was also 
important to make clear in the drafting that any action or recommendations under the Mechanism, 
needed to be taken by Members acting as a Committ ee.  Third, her delegation supported the approach 
that Rev.4 took on the sequencing issue.  It was u seful to have a flexible and mutually supportive 
approach to sequencing that a voided duplication of effort a nd preserved the function of the 
Monitoring Mechanism as a focal point, but at the sa me time ensured that technical issues received 
due consideration by experts in the appropriate re levant committees.  Finally, on the structure of the 
non-paper, while preserving its substance, she sugg ested that it might be useful to organize the 
substance under Preamble, one heading under Scope and Function i.e. what the Mechanism does and 
covers, and another on Structure and Operation i.e. how it does its work.  On the process, she looked 
forward to continuing with the Chairman's sm all-group informal consu ltations and thought it 
premature to involve Ambassadors in a text-based discussion when the experts had not had ample opportunity to discuss the text. 
18. The representative of Canada 
welcomed the Chairman's Rev.4 as a good basis for future 
work, as it aptly captured the Guiding Principles resulting from the Ambassadors' process, along with 
elements from the Chairman's previous non-paper.  Sh e stated that Canada was prepared to enter into 
a line-by-line discussion of the text and stressed that until Members had had the opportunity to 
complete technical work, Ambassadorial engagement would be premature.  
19. The representative of Thailand  stated that as a developing country, Thailand attached great 
importance to negotiations on S&D.  He hoped that  convergence of views among Members could be 
achieved under the able guidance of the new Chai rman, as Rev.4 provided a good basis for future 
work. 
20. The representative of Cuba  stated that her delegation attach ed high priority to the idea that 
S&D provisions should be specific and operationally e fficient.  Therefore, the Monitoring Mechanism 
could play a crucial role in the review and evalua tion of the use of S&D provisions as well as allow 
for overseeing its periodic efficiency allowing for prob lems to be looked at immediately.  Supporting TN/CTD/M/43 
Page 6  
 
  India, Argentina, Egypt, Zambia and Brazil, she stat ed that Members needed to engage positively to 
fill in the remaining gaps.  She noted that Members c ould not take the risk of creating a structure that 
had less than solid foundation.  
21. The representative of Nigeria
 stated that although Nigeria recognized that Rev.4 was a step 
forward, it also felt that there was scope for improvement to address Members' concerns.  In his view, 
it was important to reflect the spirit and mandate of  Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration 
in the text.  While appreciating the Chairman's commitment to inclusiveness and transparency, he 
reiterated the importance of widening the small group for the Chairman's consultative process to 
include all stakeholders.   
22. The representative of Norway  expressed satisfaction with the progress made thus far and 
found that the Chairman's revised non-paper was a good basis for the work in the coming weeks. 
23. The representative of Pakistan  stated that Rev.4 was a step forward in the work on the 
Monitoring Mechanism and hoped that with constr uctive engagement and flexibility, Members could 
fulfil the mandate of putting the Mechanism in operation. 
24. The representative of El Salvador  stated that transparency and inclusiveness would be key to 
the success of future work  in the Special Session. 
25. In his concluding remarks, the Chairman  thanked Members for their engagement and 
providing him with their thinking on Rev.4 and the futu re work in the Special Session.  He stated that 
he planned to hold the next small-group informal consultations at technical level to undertake 
text-based consideration of Rev.4.  He hoped that  the work would help Members identify elements 
where they had consensus so as to  focus on areas where they needed to work on bridging the gaps. 
D. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATION FROM CUBA (TN/CTD/W/32) 
26. The Chairman  reminded Members that at the 42nd Special Session, the delegation of Cuba had 
wished to have an in-depth discussion on its co mmunication contained in TN/CTD/W/32 and hence 
had requested that it be placed on the formal ag enda of the next meeting.  He invited the 
representative of Cuba to start the discussion. 
27. In welcoming the opportunity to discuss and analyse Cuba's proposal on technology transfer 
in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and SPS Agreements, the representative of Cuba  stated that 
at the November 2010 meeting, a number of Members had supported its  submission and had 
expressed interest in having a substantive discussion on it in the Special Session.  However, some 
other Members had questioned the consideration of Cuba's submission in the Special Session, 
expressing the view that the Special Session was not the appropriate forum for such a discussion.  She 
noted that the Special Session was the only body which had the mandate and capacity to consider 
issues related to S&D and as such Cuba's proposal n eeded to be discussed in the Special Session with 
a view to finding appropriate solutions to the issu es raised therein.  She further stated that her 
delegation was not against the idea of receiving the opinions/inputs of other relevant bodies but 
stressed that the central role to be played in any such work should be by the Special Session.  That 
would not prejudice the role of the TBT and SPS Co mmittees that could offer useful technical inputs 
if required.  She reiterated that Cuba's proposal did not suggest in any way that technology transfer in 
the area of TBT and SPS should be free, except in the case of LDCs.  What it proposed was that 
technological transfer should be guaranteed in a secure, timely and preferential way.  In that, it did not ask too much from the developed countries.  In addition, she informed that the ACP Group had 
provided positive feedback on Cuba's proposal.  TN/CTD/M/43 
 Page 7 
 
 
  28. The representative of Nicaragua , fully supporting Cuba's proposal, stated that developing 
countries needed effective access to technology transf er, among others, to build capacity to implement 
the provisions of the SPS and TBT Agreements.  The proposal presented an appropriate basis for 
work in the Special Session that could help Me mbers to reach a broader understanding on timely and 
preferential access to appropriate technology by the beneficiary countries.  In her view, the Special 
Session was the appropriate forum to consider Cuba's proposal. 
29. The representative of Venezuela  supported Cuba's proposal and stressed the need for its 
consideration in the Special Session. 
30. The representative of the United States  expressed disappointment that the proposal by Cuba 
had yet again been placed on the agenda of the Speci al Session.  He stated that a similar proposal 
(WT/WGTTT/W/12) had been tabled by Cuba in the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of 
Technology in May 2006 which had received little s upport in 2006.  It was not clear why Cuba had 
chosen to resubmit the proposal in the Special Session.  In his vi ew, the issues outlined in Cuba's 
proposal could be best addressed in the WTO TBT and SPS Committees, respectively.  He suggested 
that if Cuba wished to continue pursuing its pr oposal, it should be submitted to the relevant WTO 
technical committees for review.  Paragraph 6 of th e proposal clearly stated that the idea was to 
analyse and assess the application of the relevant  provisions of the WTO Agreement on TBT and SPS 
measures.  The Special Session did not have jurisdiction over the application of either of these Agreements.  In addition, discussion on the Agreem ent-specific proposals had revealed that the 
Special Session could not consider the proposal. 
31. In agreeing with Cuba, the representative of Bolivia
 stated that since the Special Session had 
a specific mandate to examine all S&D provisions in  order to strengthen them, by making them more 
precise, effective and operational, the proposal tabled by Cuba needed to be co nsidered in the Special 
Session.  In addition, she stated that, in the pr ocess of adapting environmentally-friendly policies to 
protect mother earth, the legislative assembly had, in December 2010, adopted a law on mother earth.  
That was a new focus and Bolivia wi shed to table a proposal, at an a ppropriate time in the Committee.  
She urged all Members and interna tional organizations to facilitate the enhanced transfer of clean 
technologies to developing countries. 
32. The representative of Ecuador  stated that Cuba's submission mainly related to TBT and SPS 
Agreements and in practice the provision of any assistance to developing countries for improving 
TBT and SPS infrastructure often became a lengthy and burdensome process, creating a major obstacle to the transfer of such means to developing  and least-developed countries.  In that context, 
Cuba's proposal went in the right direction and should be discussed in the Special Session.  He, 
therefore, stressed that some WTO agreements  required specific abilities to implement them, 
otherwise, the actual balance between right s and obligations might be in danger. 
33. The representative of the European Union
 stated that her delegation had had the opportunity 
to have a first exchange of views on the communi cation by Cuba in May and November 2010.  The 
proposal focused on TBT and SPS-related issues and due  note had been taken of the issues that had 
been raised.  However, there were a number of issues that would need to be clarified such as the fact 
that in the TBT Committee, Members had agreed to an extended form to request technical assistance 
and so far she understood that WTO Members had r eceived only two requests.  It could possibly be 
useful to have a full picture of the number of requests for technical assistance and if these numbers were indeed limited, there might be a need to examin e the reasons for that.  It needed to be noted that 
a tri-annual review had been established in the TBT Committee and it could be interesting to see 
whether the issues raised in Cuba's communication had been or would be raised in that context.  She 
believed that the most appropriate forum to discuss Cuba's request, would undoubtedly be the TBT or 
SPS Committee. TN/CTD/M/43 
Page 8  
 
  34. The representative of Japan
 said that his delegation respected ownership and provided 
demand-driven assistance to recipient countries.  His delegation was very much interested in identifying concrete and specific country needs so as to provide larger technical assistance for TBT 
and SPS infrastructure.  In that context, the Aid-fo r-Trade Initiative should give proper attention to the 
requests for TBT and SPS-related assistance.  He note d that such requests could best be presented in 
existing bilateral and multilateral frameworks.  Furthe r, the proposal by Cuba could best be addressed 
in the relevant bodies of the WTO. 
35. The representative of Norway
 stated that she supported the need for transfer of technology to 
developing countries in the areas of TBT and SPS, and considered capacity building and technical 
assistance to be of crucial importance to developing countries.  In her view, such assistance could best 
be pursued through bilateral and multilateral channels.  However, her delegation believed that the 
proposal by Cuba was too categorical and binding for developed country Members.  Much of the 
technology transfer occurred through private ch annels and the Norwegia n Government could not 
necessarily oblige the private sector to transfer its technology to de veloping countries.  She agreed 
with the US that the Special Session was not th e appropriate forum to discuss Cuba's proposal. 
36. The representative of Cuba  thanked those Members that had provided comments on the 
proposal and requested them to convey the same in writing, so that Cuba c ould look into them.  She 
also offered to send to any Member that was inte rested, the comments that had been received from the 
ACP Group.  On the issue of the competence of diffe rent committees, she stated  that although Cuba's 
proposal raised issues related to TBT and SPS Agreemen ts in the context of technology transfer, yet, 
it was a cross-cutting issue and cruc ial for development efforts.  Th is was a question related to S&D 
and not pertinent to any specific WTO Agreement.  Therefore, her delegation firmly believed that the 
Special Session was the right forum to consider th e proposal.  While technology was essentially in the 
hands of the private sector, countries had pursued polic ies that encouraged transfer of technology by a 
variety of means including through incentives, such as Aid for Trade.  In that context, she invited 
Members to share their experiences as part of the Th ird Global Review envisaged for July 2011.  She 
emphasized that the public sector, as a regulator of modern day society, had a crucial part to play in 
fostering and promoting technology transfer to developing countries. 
37. The Special Session took note of the statements made. 
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
38. As no Member had raised an issue under Other Business, the Chairman  thanked Members for 
their participation and contributions in the deliber ations.  He hoped that in the coming weeks, they 
would work constructively towards concluding the work at  hand.  He also stated that at some stage, he 
would revert to the Agreement-specific proposals.   
39. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
 
 
__________