RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/23 
10 April 2006 
 (06-1665) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Twenty-Third Special Session  
 
  
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 6 MARCH 2006 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Burhan Gafoor (Singapore) 
 
 
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................................1  
B. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON -DESIGNATE .....................................1  
C. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS .............................................................................................1  
D. OTHER BUSINESS ........................................................................................................................6  
 
  A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting as contained in airgram WTO/AIR/2766 of 
24 February 2006 was adopted . 
B. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON -DESIGNATE  
2. The Chairman-designate proposed that, following the consensus in the 8 February General 
Council on the slate of names of Chairpersons, the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (Special Session) confirm his appoi ntment as Chairperson.  Ambassador Burhan 
Gafoor's  Chairmanship was accordingly confirmed.  
3. On behalf of all Members and the Secretariat, the Chairman  thanked the former Chairman 
Mr. Faizel Ismail for his tireless efforts and hard work.  He said that Mr. Ismail had taken on the Chairmanship at a difficult time and deserved credit for taking the process forward.  He wished him 
well in his new appointment as Chairman of th e Committee on Trade and Development.  Members 
which took the floor during the meeting also expr essed their gratitude to Mr. Faizel Ismail for his 
dedication and commitment to the work of the Special Session. 
C. A
GREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
4. Before moving on to the substa nce of the agenda, the Chairman  requested that his proposed 
work plan, as suggested and agreed to by Members at the informal meeting held on 24 February 2006. 
be included in the record of the meeting.   
5. At that meeting, the Chairman had briefed Me mbers on what he felt could constitute the work 
of the Special Session in the upcoming months.  He sai d that he had, over the past two weeks, held 
consultations both bilaterally and plurilaterally w ith various Members and had met with the African 
Group, GRULAC, the ACP Group, developed and other developing country Members.  He had also 
met twice with the LDC Group.  Overall, he had been encouraged by those consultations and had TN/CTD/M/23 
Page 2  
 
  sensed a willingness on the part of all stakeholders  to engage constructively to move the process 
forward.  He had shared some of his thoughts on how Members could organize their work over the 
coming months.  The Special Session did not work in  isolation and its work was clearly part of a 
wider negotiating process.  Members needed to recognise that the Doha Round was moving towards 
its concluding phase.  The context and dynamics in  the post-Hong Kong situation were different and 
there was pressure on all the negotiating bodies, a nd consequently also on the Special Session, to 
complete the pending work by December 2006.  Discu ssions in the Special Session therefore needed 
to be focussed and text based.  That was the message the Chairman of the TNC had also been 
conveying.  Members, had adopted the five LDC proposals at Hong Kong.  It had been a difficult 
process but represented an important small step fo rward.  This had been possible because Members 
had been focussed and had demonstr ated the necessary political will a nd flexibility needed to reach an 
agreement.  He hoped that Members could demonstr ate the same political will and flexibility while 
addressing the remaining proposals. 
6. The Chairman went on to say that the mandate for the Special Session was clearly set out in 
paragraphs 35-38 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declar ation.  Essentially, the Special Session had to 
focus on three main areas.  First,  the Special Session had been ma ndated to expeditiously complete 
the review of all the outstanding Agreement-speci fic proposals and report to the General Council, 
with clear recommendations for a decision by December 2006.  Sec ond, the Special Session had to 
continue coordinating its efforts with those of the WTO bodies to which the Category II proposals had 
been referred.  Those bodies had also been in structed to make clear recommendations on the 
Category II proposals for a decision no later than De cember 2006.  Third, the Special Session had also 
been instructed to resume work on all other outst anding issues, including on the cross-cutting issues 
and report on a regular basis to th e General Council.  Additionally, Me mbers would also need to take 
a decision about the package of 28 Agreement-sp ecific proposals on which Members had reached an 
in-principle agreement.  That was one of the positiv e results of the work done so far and he saw no 
reason why Members should let the opportunity of adopting those proposals slip away.   
7. The Chairman said that it was clear that the ma ndate of the Special Session fell broadly into 
two clusters.  One cluster related to the Agreemen t-specific proposals and the other cluster related to 
the other outstanding issues.  An informal note reflecting the status of the Agreement-specific 
proposals had been made available to Members.  Annex I of that note, showed that of the 
88 Agreement-specific proposals that had been tabl ed in the Special Session, 38 proposals, also 
known as the Category II proposals, had been referr ed to other negotiating and WTO bodies.  That 
had left 50 Category I and III proposals under cons ideration in the Special Session.  Before 
Hong Kong, Members had reached an in-principle ag reement on 28 proposals, one of which was from 
Category II.  This left 23 proposals, of whic h Members had, at Hong Kong, adopted five LDC 
proposals.  This left 18 proposals pending for cons ideration in the Special Session, of which two 
related to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing which had since expired.  Of the 16 remaining 
proposals, eight were Category I proposals and the other eight were Category III proposals.  In his 
view, Members needed to begin by focusing on th e eight remaining Category I proposals based on the 
last language considered.   
8. With regard to the outstanding issues, the Chairm an said that the mandate to resume work on 
all outstanding issues was clear.  His sense from th e informal consultations, was that Members were 
prepared to resume discussions on the outstanding  issues, including on the cross-cutting issues, the 
Monitoring Mechanism, and the incorporation of S& D into the architecture of WTO rules.  It was 
important that Members remained faithful to what  Ministers had decided at Hong Kong.  However, 
what the results of resuming work on the tho se outstanding issue would be, was for Members to 
decide.  In his view, that work needed to follo w a bottom-up approach.  As Chairman, he had no 
preconceived ideas or vision of what the result of th at aspect of the work would be and he had no 
intention of steering Members in any pre-determined direction.  In fact, it was up to Members to guide  TN/CTD/M/23 
 Page 3 
 
 
  him.  He would provide the environment as well as ac t as a facilitator of those discussions.  However, 
the responsibility of taking that process forward lay with Members 
9. The Chairman said that he had met with th e LDCs on two occasions.  He recognized the 
importance that the LDCs attached to the implementation of the decision on duty-free quota-free (DFQF) market access.  He recognized that the m odalities of implementing that decision remained to 
be settled.  Members would recall that at the cl osing Plenary Session of the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference, the Chairman had stated that paragraph a(ii) of the DFQF decision was a framework and that developed Members and developing Members declaring themselves in a position to do so, would 
need to consider the means by which they would im plement the decision.  He was therefore conscious 
that there was still work to be done in this regard .  However, at the same time, it was important that 
Members did not re-open or re-interpret any aspect of the decisions taken at Hong Kong.  Informal 
consultations were apparently u nderway between the LDCs, other stakeholders as well as with the 
Director-General.  He said that he would await further developments in this regard. 
10. The Chairman added that, in his view, th e Special Session should focus on the eight 
remaining Category I Agreement-specific proposals a nd that the discussions should be text based.  
The aim should be to narrow the differences and reach an agreement on possible recommendations 
that could be made to the Genera l Council.  He also hoped that Memb ers could have a first reading of 
the remaining eight Category III proposals before the summer break.  Members should begin work on 
the basis of the last language considered, which ha d been circulated.  This would not prejudice any 
Members' position, and Members would be free to table amendments as part of a text-based discussion.  However, he hoped that such amendmen ts would be focussed and specific, and tabled 
with a view to building on the last language consid ered.  In terms of the timing of the meetings, he 
said that the Special Session would need to report regularly on progress to the General Council at its meetings scheduled for May, July and October as contained in the Doha Work Programme Timelines 
for 2006
1 circulated by the Chairman of the TNC.  Wo rk in the Special Session would therefore need 
to be synchronized with the reporting requirements to the General Council, so that the Special Session 
would be in a position to provide an update on all asp ects of the mandate.  A formal meeting had been 
scheduled on 6 March in which Members could take  up the eight Category I proposals.  A formal 
meeting had also been scheduled for 7 April at wh ich Members could continue their consideration of 
the eight Category I proposals, review progress on the Category II proposals, and resume discussions on the outstanding issues.  The March and April meeti ngs could actually be cons idered as two parts of 
a single meeting, and therefore if Members were unable to complete the discussions on the eight 
Category I proposals, the discussions could carry ove r into the April meeting, at which the other 
outstanding issues would also be taken up.  He woul d then be able to report to the General Council in 
May that the Special Session had addressed all asp ects of the mandate.  In that sense, the April 
meeting was a continuation of the March meeting.   
11. The representative of Switzerland
 said that she was pleased that  Members had been able to 
reach an agreement on the five LDC proposals in Hong Kong, especially on the issue of DFQF market 
access for them.  Work in her capital had already be gun on the means of implementing the decision.  
She agreed that Members needed to do further work  on the DFQF framework.  Work done in 2005 on 
the LDC Agreement-specific proposals had show ed Members that certain preconditions were 
necessary in order to reach an agreement.  In her delegation's view, the determining factors had been 
firstly, the LDC's readiness to spe ll out their objective in a precise and operational manner.  This had 
helped Members to reduce the complexity involved in the proposals and had led to their being a 
manageable number of proposals on the table.  Secondly, the LDC’s had engaged in a dynamic 
dialogue with all other Members.  Thirdly, and mo st importantly, Members had shown a political will 
to come to a solution on the LDC proposals.  Her delegation agreed  with the Chairman's suggested 
work plan, including the fact that further work shoul d be on the basis of the last language considered.  
                                                      
1 JOB(06)/13. TN/CTD/M/23 
Page 4  
 
  However, she cautioned that Members were not necessar ily close to agreement.  In that regard, she 
acknowledged that there was a high expectation with  regard to the possible contribution of those 
proposals to 'development'.  The views on what should  be the characteristics of 'development' and the 
policies needed to promote 'development' had evolve d over time.  As a consequence, policy responses 
which reflected the conception as to what constitute d development had shifted.  Members needed to 
be aware that there was no consensus on a single set  of economic best practices that could lead to 
development.  Negotiating results would therefore always be a compromise that might not fully satisfy the aspirations of the proponents.  WTO Me mbers required a set of policy options to pursue 
developmental objectives with the instruments they be lieved to be most suitable to their situation.  
However, countries had become Members of the WT O because of the advantages that a universal 
system of rights and obligations provided.  'Costs' to other Members or to the system needed to be 
thoroughly assessed and minimized, before accepting an y proposal to deviate from the rules.  In her 
delegation's view, externalities of costs could be minimized by making the deviations from the rules 
focused and responsive to specific problems.  The proponents therefore needed to clarify the specific 
problems which they were facing.  With respect to the organization of work, she believed that 
working informally in small groups, as had been done in the run up to Hong Kong, was the most 
efficient way to proceed.  Her delegation also felt it would be useful to begin smoothly into discussions on the cross-cutting issues. 
12. Speaking on behalf of the LDCs, the representativ e of Nepal said that the LDCs attached 
great importance to the work of the Special Session.   S&D issues were at the heart of the development 
dimension of the Doha Round.  In their view, S&D provisions, if made precise, effective and 
operational for LDCs, had the potential to result in m eaningful market integration.  At the informal 
meeting, the Chairman had asked the LDCs whether they felt that it would be in their interest to have 
the implementation issues of the DFQF decision d ealt with under one body.  Upon reflection, the 
LDC Group had concluded that its interests would n eed to be addressed in the different relevant 
bodies, such as the Negotiating Group on Market A ccess, the Special Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture and the Special Session itself.  Howeve r, the Special Session should be the main body 
dealing with the Hong Kong Ministerial decisions as that was the negotiating body established to address S&D issues.  The LDC Group wished to see the issue of defining the implementation 
modalities of the DFQF market access for all LDCs fo r at least 97 per cent product coverage and the 
development of simplified and transparent rules of origin addressed in the Special Session.  The LDC 
Group also believed that it would be of vital importance to keep the Negotiating Groups on NAMA 
and Agriculture informed of the further negotiations  on DFQF market access and rules of origin held 
in the Special Session.  As the modalities on ag riculture and NAMA were to be finalized by 
April 2006, it was important that the LDC issues re lating to DFQF market access were also concluded 
by April 2006.  If that did not happen, then the con cerns of the LDCs would not get incorporated into 
the modalities on Agriculture and NAMA.  It was also  worth noting that paragraph 24 of Annex B of 
the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration referred to th e fact that the question of DFQF market access 
for LDCs was being examined in the Special S ession.  The LDCs would also be counting on the 
Chairman to ensure that Members confined themselv es to a discussion of what was agreed to by the 
Ministers at Hong Kong and that the DFQF decision was not opened in any way.  At the closing 
Plenary Session of the Hong Kong Ministerial Conf erence, the Chairman had made it clear that 
Annex F of the Ministerial Declaration was a fram ework and that the modalities for implementing that 
decision would need to be worked out after Hong Kong.  Members had not yet reached the stage of 
implementation, before which the modalities of im plementation would need to be finalized.  The 
LDCs therefore felt that the DFQF market access issue must remain in the Special Session, until 
modalities for implementation had been agreed.  LDCs  were seeking precision, effectiveness and an 
early operationalization of the DFQF decision.  In doing that the LDCs were seeking improved market 
access opportunities as the most vulnerable group of WTO Members. 
13. The representative of the United States
 said that her delegation had a strong interest in 
implementing the commitments undertaken at Hong Kong.  However, in her delegation's view,  TN/CTD/M/23 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Ministers had mandated that the implementation of that decision be carried out in the Regular Session 
of the CTD.  Her delegation was prepared to discuss  those issues but did not think that there were 
issues that still needed to be negotiated.  Her dele gation considered this to be more of a discussion on 
how Members would implement what they had alr eady negotiated and agreed at Hong Kong.  Her 
delegation believed that these issues could also be taken up in the Sub-Committee on 
Least-Developed Countries.  However, this was an issue that would need to be discussed at other 
levels and, at this stage, her de legation could not agree to the proposal put forward by the LDCs that 
the modalities of implementing the DFQF decisi on be discussed in the Special Session.   
14. The Chairman  urged the delegations which had an in terest in the DFQF issue to undertake 
informal consultations among themselves.  He said th at the Special Session would revert to that issue 
at the next formal meeting.   
15. Moving on, he said that discussions on th e remaining Category I Agreement-specific 
proposals would be based on the last language consider ed, which he had made available to Members.  
He suggested that Members address the proposals one  by one beginning with proposal nos. 28-30 on 
Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing,  followed by proposal 13 on GATT Article XVIII.  
Subsequently, the three remaining proposals coul d be taken up.  The reason he was suggesting a 
particular order was because he had been made to  understand that Members had made considerable 
headway on those proposals.   
16. The meeting thereafter conti nued in an informal mode. 
17. During the discussions on proposal nos. 28-30 on Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing, most Members felt that developing country Members facing difficulties in providing 
import statistics with respect to products subj ect to import licensing could be provided some 
flexibility, as long as the overall objective of transparency was not compromised.  While the proponents agreed that it was important not to  compromise transparency, they felt that some 
flexibility should be accorded to countries which faced difficulties in providing statistics.  They also 
felt that there needed to be more precision in gi ving special consideration to developing countries in 
the allocation of licenses.  Some Members, however , did raise concerns a bout providing a blanket 
exemption for Members not to provide statistics and stated that only those countries lacking the administrative and financial capacity to provide such  data should be accorded limited flexibility.  As 
for proposal no. 13 on GATT Article XVIII, a number of developed country Members questioned the 
intent of the proposal and sought clarification as to the specific problems that the proponents had experienced with Article XVIII in the past.  In th e proponents' view, Article XVIII was a policy tool 
for industrial development which countries at 'early  stages of development' needed to address their 
development objectives.  The intention was to ma ke Article XVIII more precise and operational so 
that it fulfilled its purpose.  A number of Members st ated that while they were willing to consider 
ways of making Article XVIII more precise, they could not agree to language that went beyond the 
scope of Article XVIII.  One Member stated that in its view, the proposal was seeking to rewrite 
Article XVIII rather than making it more precise, ef fective and operational.  On proposal no.14 on 
GATT Article XVIII:A, a number of Members stated  that giving developing country Members the 
right to withdraw concessions without due process would render the certainty and predictability that 
was sought to be achieved in the negotiations useless.  A number of Members stated that in addition to 
involving some sort of due process, the proposal woul d also need to consider the possible effects on 
other Members.  On proposal no. 22, relating to  Article IX and the Understanding in Respect of 
Waivers of Obligations under the GATT, one Member  stated that the concerns it had raised during 
discussions on a similar proposal tabled by the LDCs had not changed, and that it still remained to be 
convinced on the need to change the exiting language  of Article IX for developing countries.  On 
proposal nos. 24-25 on Article 10.3 of the Sanita ry and Phytosanitary Agreement, a number of 
Members highlighted the need to take into account th e work that was being carried out in the Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Committee in this regard.  Th at would avoid duplication.  Thereafter, revised TN/CTD/M/23 
Page 6  
 
  language on the basis of the discussions, was circulat ed for proposal nos. 28-30 on Article 3.5 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing and proposal no. 13 on GATT Article XVIII.  It was agreed that the 
Special Session would revert to the these proposals at its next meeting.  
18. While concluding the meeting, the Chairman
 said that Members had had a good first round of 
discussions on the Category I Agreement-specific propo sals.  The atmosphere had been constructive 
and the tone had been positive.  All stakehol ders had shown signs of flexibility which was 
encouraging.  While all of the pr oposals needed more work, it was cl ear that some of them needed 
more work than the others.  He would continue in formal discussions on some of the proposals, and at 
the April meeting he would continue the considerat ion of these proposals.  He asked Members to be 
prepared for discussions on all the proposals at the next formal meeting.  At the April meeting, he also 
intended to resume work on all the other outstanding issues as mandated by Ministers in the 
Hong Kong Declaration.  In that regard, and as he had mentioned, he hoped that the different 
stakeholders would undertake informal consultati ons among themselves, to consider ways in which 
they wished the Special Session to proceed on those i ssues.  At the April meeting, he would also brief 
Members on the status of the Category II proposals.  He was in the process of writing to the various 
Chairpersons of  the bodies to which the Categor y II proposals had been referred and he would be 
stressing the need for them to expedite work on those proposals.  He would also ask them to communicate the dates of the various meetings at which the S&D proposals would be taken up, so as 
to enable Members to have some advance noti ce and attend the meetings in which the proposals 
would be taken up.  
19. The representative of China
 requested that the responses by the various Chairpersons on the 
status of the Category II proposals be circulated to  Members in order to provide them with a better 
understanding of the situation.  It was so agreed. 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
20. No issue was raised under "Other Business". 
 
__________