RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/42 
21 December 2010 
 (10-6851) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Forty-Second Special Session  
   
NOTE ON THE MEETIN G OF 8 NOVEMBER 2010 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Thawat chai Sophastienphong (Thailand) 
 
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS ...........................................1  
C. OTHER BUSINESS .........................................................................................................................5  
 
 A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The agenda, as contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/3646 of 25 October 2010 was adopted with 
the addition of an item, at the request of the delegation of Cuba , to discuss its  submission contained 
in document TN/CTD/W/32 that was introduced at the 39th Special Session of the Committee on 
Trade and Development (Special Session) on 19 March 2010. 
B. REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS  
2. Under this item, the Chairman updated Memb ers on the work undertaken in the Special 
Session since his last report in July 2010.  He stated that at the 41st Special Session, he had reported 
on work that had been carried out so far on bot h the six Agreement-specific proposals as well as on 
the Monitoring Mechanism.  Since July 2010, work in the small-group consultations had focused on 
the Monitoring Mechanism on the b asis of the Chairman's non-paper dated 30 April 2010.  Since the 
last report, he had held two sm all-group meetings.  The first meeting was held on 27 September and 
the second on 3 November 2010.   
3. Alluding to his July report, he observed that on the Preamble of the Monitoring Mechanism, 
Members continued to have different perceptions  on whether the mandate derived from paragraph 44 
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration or paragraph 17 of the Special Session's report to the General 
Council (TN/CTD/3 of 26 July 2002), read together with paragraph 251 of the Minutes of the General 
Council meeting in July 2002.  He noted that th e discussion on the mandate had remained polarized 
and that there had been no common understanding on the issue at that stage.  Referring to the Scope 
of the Monitoring Mechanism, the Chairman noted th at the issue that had remained was whether the 
Mechanism should only monitor special and different ial treatment (S&D) provisions and issues in the 
WTO Agreements or if it should also include all General Council Decisions and Ministerial 
Declarations.  In addition, views had continued to  be expressed as to whether the Mechanism should 
keep under review any work being done on the Ag reement-specific proposals in other WTO bodies 
including work being done in accordance with paragra ph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  On 
Structure, the main area of contention that remain ed was the sequencing issue, where positions had 
continued to remain divergent.  Regarding Functions, the Chairman stated that his own assessment at 
that stage had been that this was one area wher e there was an enhanced degree of convergence.   TN/CTD/M/42 
Page 2  
 
  4. The Chairman informed Members that since the summer break, a group of Ambassadors in 
Geneva had initiated an informal  consultative process on overall D oha Development Agenda (DDA) 
negotiations with a view to finding pragmatic solu tions to some of the issues that had impeded 
progress in the ongoing negotiations.  This Ambassa dor-led consultative process, which was being 
undertaken by the Ambassadors at their own initia tive, and which was housed outside the WTO, had 
engaged in discussions, inter alia , on S&D, with focus being on ways to bridge the gap between 
different positions on the elements of the Monitoring  Mechanism.  He said that, as Chairman of the 
Special Session, he had been privy to this process as an observer. 
5. At the small-group informal consultations held  on 27 September 2010, some of the Members 
that had been involved in the Ambassador-led c onsultative process had briefed other Members on the 
work being undertaken by the Ambassadors on the M onitoring Mechanism and had reported that there 
was an emerging convergence on the idea that the M onitoring Mechanism might have a wider scope 
in terms of its mandate and objective.  It was felt that though the Monitoring Mechanism might not be 
a negotiating forum, it might also not be a mere transp arency tool.  It would in fact be a vehicle for 
strengthening and improving the understanding of S&D, contributing to its meaningful 
implementation and effectiveness.  The main role of the Monitoring Mechanism would be to ensure 
the effectiveness of S&D.  Members had generally  shared the view that the informal Group of 
Ambassadors had provided leadership on the mandate  issue, which needed to be translated into 
concrete progress in the Special Session.  It was also  stated that the Ambassadors would continue their 
deliberations on the Scope and othe r elements of the Monitoring M echanism.  The Chairman further 
stated that, at that meeting, Members had not b een ready to engage in text-based discussions on the 
elements of the Monitoring Mechan ism, as they had thought that it might interfere with and prejudge 
the ongoing deliberations of the Ambassadors.   
6. In the meantime, the Ambassador-led consultativ e process had continued to focus its work on 
the Monitoring Mechanism and had provided concrete guidance by agreeing on what they termed as 
the 'Guiding Principles' on the Function and Scope of the Monitoring Mechanism.  Consequently, at 
the private informal consultations held on 3 Nove mber 2010, some Members that  had been involved 
in this process had tabled a docum ent, dated 27 October 2010, entitled ''Monitoring Mechanism on 
S&DT: Guiding Principles''  as an informal contribution to fa cilitate progress in the work of the 
Special Session (copies of the document had been made  available at the meeting).  At that meeting, 
Members had generally agreed that the Guiding Pr inciples, although neither final nor exhaustive, did 
provide a useful parameter in guiding and informing work at the technical level on the elements of the 
Monitoring Mechanism and could help re-invigorate di scussions in the Special Session.  It was also 
suggested that the Chairman might consider re vising his non-paper of 30 April 2010 in light of 
guidance provided in the Guiding Principles.   
7. In the spirit of inclusiveness and transparency , the Chairman, thereafter, invited the wider 
Membership to comment and express their views on th e work undertaken, thus far, in small-group 
informal consultations as well as on the contribution entitled ''Monitoring Mechanism on S&DT: 
Guiding  Principles"  by the informal group of Ambassadors. 
8. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of Pakistan
 welcomed the contribution by the 
informal group of Ambassadors and appreciated  the convergence achieved in framing the Guiding 
Principles.  He stated that the Guiding Principl es could be key in breaking the inertia in the S&D 
negotiations.  He believed that the Guiding Principl es had taken on board concerns of all concerned 
and presented a balanced solution.  In that context,  he added that although the Monitoring Mechanism 
would not be a negotiating forum, it had clearly b een proposed that the Mechanism would also not be 
a mere transparency and information-sharing tool .  Instead, the Monitoring Mechanism could make 
recommendations and propose actions for opening negotiations on S&D issues.  He requested the 
Chairman to revise his non-paper on the basis of th e Guiding Principles so that future work could 
proceed on that basis.   TN/CTD/M/42 
 Page 3 
 
 
  9. Making a statement on behalf of the LDC Group, the representative of Zambia  reiterated that 
S&D provisions remained an indispensable tool  for developing and least-developed countries' 
effective participation and smooth integration into the multilateral tr ading system and which enabled 
them to realise tangible benefits therefrom.  Much depended on how Me mbers implemented those 
provisions in both letter and spirit.  It was also true that some of these provisions had not yielded the 
desired results because of the way in which they had been either crafted or implemented.  It was this 
realization by the Ministers that prompted them to agree in paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration to 
review all S&D provisions with a view to strengt hening them and making them precise, effective and 
operational.  It was also exactly for the same  reason that the proposed Monitoring Mechanism 
remained relevant in ensuring that all S&D provisi ons were reviewed with a view to strengthening 
them and making them precise, effective and operatio nal.  Therefore, it was necessary that its function 
should not just be limited to a mere review.  It must be ensured that the intended objectives as set out in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declarati on were fully met.  If this did not happen, the 
constraints faced by developing and least-develope d countries would continue to persist.  The 
Mechanism needed, therefore, to provide a plat form for Members to make recommendations where 
necessary, with a view to finding solutions that would contribute to strengthening S&D provisions and 
making them precise, effective and operational.  She emphasized that any exercise which did not add value to the current process was not worth undertaking.   In concluding, she stressed that the work on 
the Monitoring Mechanism must be guided by the ma ndate of paragraph 44 of  the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration and the subsequent Decisions taken by the General Council and affirmed by Ministers in 
Hong Kong. 
10. The representative of Cuba
 placed emphasis on  the role that the Monitoring Mechanism 
could play in enhancing the usefulness and e ffectiveness of the S&D provisions in the WTO 
Agreements.  In line with paragraph 44 of the Doha  Ministerial Declaration the fundamental objective 
of the Monitoring Mechanism would be to review the S&D provisions with a view to making them 
precise, effective and operational.  She said that in Cuba's view, the Mechanism needed to begin in the 
CTD Dedicated Session and that it could draw from the experience of other technical committees, as 
necessary.  She also stress ed that developed countries needed to  demonstrate flexibility to facilitate 
progress in this area – as it would send a positive signal to the DDA negotiations in general.  
11. The representative of India  supported Pakistan and Zambia in calls for preparation of a 
revised non-paper on the Monitoring Mechanism b ased on the Guiding Principles.  However, he 
stressed that while the Guiding Pr inciples were a useful guide to further work, they were neither 
exhaustive nor final.  He further noted that his de legation expected the Chairman to prepare a revised 
non-paper that not only took its cue from the Guiding Principles but also fully conformed to the mandate contained in the Gene ral Council Decision of Septem ber 2002 and the African Group's 
proposal on the Monitoring Mechanism.   
12. The representative of Malaysia
, making a statement on behalf of ASEAN Member countries, 
recognized the usefulness of the small-group discussions  in identifying the problems that had so far 
been intractable.  He, however, stressed the importance that ASEAN countries attached to 
transparency and inclusiveness in achieving c onvergence among Members.  ASEAN countries, 
therefore, appreciated the open-ended meetings th at provided an opportunity for all Members to 
consider and express views on important issues discussed  in the small-group meetings.  He went on to 
say that the Guiding Principles ag reed by the Ambassadors captured a delicate balance of both the 
Functions and Scope of the Monitoring Mechanism.   Even though they recognized that there were 
elements under the Monitoring Mechanism that we re yet to be discussed, the ASEAN countries hoped 
that once the Guiding Principles were incorporated  into the Chairman's non-paper, it would form a 
useful starting point for Members' future work. 
13. The representative of Brazil  noted that the Guiding Principles provided a good basis for future 
work in the Committee.  Nonethel ess, she stressed that the Guidi ng Principles could be used as TN/CTD/M/42 
Page 4  
 
  guidelines for setting up the Monitoring Mechanism.  These were neither exhaustive nor final.  
Members still had a lot of work ahead of them in  fleshing out elements of the other parts of the 
instrument such as the Preamble and the general structure. 
14. The representative of Costa Rica
 agreed that the Guiding Princi ples were a step forward in the 
work of the Special Session.  A lthough Costa Rica agreed with many elements contained in the 
Guiding Principles, these were not set in stone.  The important task ahead was how these Guiding 
Principles would be reflected in the draft text on the Monitoring Mechanism.   Since the Ambassadors  
had not pronounced them on the Preamble and Struct ure, the crucial question was how the issue of 
sequencing – an important element to  maintain balance in the text –  would be reflected in the text. 
15. The representative of Turkey  stated that her delegation att ached importance to transparency 
and inclusiveness of the ongoing work and asked that Turkey be informed of all stages of work in the 
Special Session.  
16. The representative of Ecuador  stated that his delegation would like that future work on the 
Monitoring Mechanism  be based on the overriding Guiding Principles in an open-ended format.  In 
addition, he underscored the releva nce of paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration to the 
work of the Monitoring Mechanism.  
17. The representative of Australia  welcomed the Guiding Principles as a balanced and 
constructive contribution to the work of the Special Session and, on that basis, supported a revision of the Chairman's non-paper of 30 April 2010.  In so doing, she encouraged the Chairman to bear in 
mind the delicate balance of Members' views that were reflected in the Guiding Principles with 
respect to the Monitoring Mechanism it self and the mandate for the negotiations. 
18. The representative of Canada
 appreciated the careful balance that had been achieved by the 
Ambassador-led informal process in agreeing on the Guiding Principles.  The contributions by the 
Ambassadors brought much needed focus to Member s' work in outlining both the Scope and Mandate 
of the Monitoring Mechanism.   
19. The representative of the European Union  expressed complete support for the Chairman's 
further efforts towards incorporating the Guiding Pr inciples into his revised non-paper and continuing 
with the work on the Monitoring Mechanism. 
20. The representative of Norway  expressed support for the Guiding Principles and stressed on 
the need for future work to b ear in mind the delicate balance between the different aspects of the 
Mechanism. 
21. The representative of Japan  also underlined the need to pr eserve the delicate balance achieved 
in the Guiding Principles. 
22. In agreeing that the Guiding Principles were a positive contribution to help Members continue 
text-based negotiations at the technical level, the representative of Egypt  stressed that the Principles 
were neither final nor legal a nd were non-exhaustive as those focussed only on the functions and 
scope and not on other elements of the Monito ring Mechanism.  The Monitoring Mechanism was 
envisaged to provide a framework for initiating a nd considering recommendations that the CTD could 
make in complying with obligations under S&D provi sions.  He went on to state that there was a 
shared sense of understanding amongst many Me mbers that the Monitoring Mechanism would 
regularly evaluate the utilization and effectiveness of the S&D provisions in order to ensure that they 
were being utilized effectively and that any problems arising would be addressed by taking the 
necessary action that makes S&D provisions more precise, effective and operational in accordance 
with paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declarati on.  Egypt noted that its final assessment of the  TN/CTD/M/42 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Guiding Principles would ultimately depend on how they would be translated into a legal text in the 
Chair's revised non-paper.   
23. The representative of China  welcomed and supported the Guiding Principles agreed by the 
Ambassadors and looked forward to the Chairman's  revised non-paper.  He reminded Members that 
there was still a long way to go as the Guiding Principles only covered the Function and the Scope 
and crucial issues like the mandate and se quencing still remained to be resolved. 
24. The representative of the United States  noted that his delegation was encouraged by the 
Guiding Principles that the Ambassadors had agreed upon and hoped that these would shape 
Members' future work in the Special Session.  His delegation continued to s upport the development of 
a Monitoring Mechanism, in the hope that it would evolve as a practical tool for assisting Members in 
the utilization of S&D provisions.  Regarding next steps, he hoped that once the broader Membership 
had had a chance to review the Guiding Principl es, and following the revised non-paper from the 
Chairman, Members could begin working on the negotiating text. 
25. The Chairman  took note of the statements made and stated that, based on the guidance 
provided by Members at that meeting, he would a ttempt a revision of his non-paper of 30 April.  He 
added that the guidance provided by the Ambassadors on document ''Monitoring Mechanism on 
S&DT: Guiding Principles''  of 27 October would form the basis of most of his work on the 
non-paper.  He further added that he would circul ate a revised non-paper to Members in the coming 
days and would continue work on that basis.   C. 
OTHER BUSINESS  
26. Under "Other Business", the representative of Cuba  recalled that at the 39th Special Session 
which took place on 19 March 2010, her dele gation had introduced a communication entitled 
"Negotiations on Special and Differential Treatme nt" contained in document TN/CTD/W/32.  The 
communication had highlighted the importance of tec hnology transfer in the context of development 
priorities and its value as S&D treatment for deve loping countries.  Experience had shown that 
transfer of technology commitments in the WTO Ag reements had yet to translate into reality for 
developing countries.  Cuba had proposed that the Sp ecial Session examine this in the context of the 
S&D Work Programme and see what could be done to redress the situation.  The communication had also carried out an assessment of the relevant pr ovisions in the Agreements on Technical Barriers to 
Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measu res (SPS).  Cuba believed that transfer of 
technology was crucial to build capacity and necessary technical infrastructure in developing 
countries to meet TBT and SPS obligations.   
 
27. Cuba also recalled that at the 40
th Special Session, Members had briefly discussed their 
submission.  While the communication had attracted  support from a large number of developing 
countries, most of the developed countries ha d not favoured the consideration of Cuba's 
communication in the Special Session.  She stated that, no doubt, the submission was similar to the 
one that Cuba had submitted in the Working Gr oup on Trade and Transfer of Technology (WGTTT) 
in 2006.  However, since technol ogy and its acquisition was a cross-cutting issue for any country's 
development strategies, her delegation wished to ta ke it up in the negotiations on S&D in the Special 
Session, without prejudice to the contributions that the WGTTT may make on the issue.  She further added that Cuba wished to have  a frank and open exchange of view s and looked forward to receiving 
suggestions and ideas that would help Cuba to revise and improve its submission.  In this context, she 
argued that technology transfer was one of the cr ucial issues for pursuing development objectives and 
hence very much related to the operationalization of S&D - the exercise in which the Special Session 
had been engaged under paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.   
 TN/CTD/M/42 
Page 6  
 
  28. In the discussion that ensu ed, the representative of Bolivia
 stated that Bolivia shared Cuba's 
views on the importance of access to technology and its  transfer and hoped that in future meetings, 
this issue would be taken up by the Special Session for a thorough discussion.    29. The representative of Ecuador
 stated that Ecuador also s upported the Cuban submission and 
called for the matter to be placed on the formal agen da of the next meeting of the Special Session so 
that Members could have the opportunity to analyse it fully.  30. The representative of the United States
 stated that since the matter had only been raised under 
"Other Business", he had no instructions from the authorities on how to proceed and that he would 
need to seek additional guidance from his capital. 
 31. The representative of the European Union
 endorsed the views articulated by the US.  He 
recalled that at the previous meeting when the su bmission was considered, the EU had suggested that 
the appropriate technical level for any furthe r work on it was the TBT and SPS Committees.   
 
32. The representative of Norway  recalled that her delegation had not been particularly 
supportive of the proposal when it had last been discussed in May 2010 as her delegation had thought 
that it was too categorical and too binding for the donors.  Although she did not have any new 
instructions from her capital, she did not thi nk that her capital's position would have changed.  
 
33. The representative of Venezuela  supported the submission by Cuba and expressed interest in 
having an in-depth discussion on it in one of th e future meetings of the Special Session.  
 34. The representative of India
 noted that the submission by Cuba dealt with the important issue 
of transfer of technology and merite d due consideration.  He, therefore,  suggested that Cuba bring this 
as an agenda item at the next meeting of the Speci al Session, so that Members could have a broader 
discussion on the issue and, if necessary, take appropriate decision.  35. At that stage, the representative of Cuba
 took the floor to formally request the Chairman to 
include its submission for consideration in the agenda of the next formal meeting. 
 
36. In conclusion, the Chairman  noted that any Member could bring up any issue for inclusion in 
the agenda of the meetings and hence Cuba would be  within their right to do so.  Since Cuba had 
made a formal request he would include Cuba's subm ission in the agenda of the next formal meeting 
of the Special Session.  This would also give Memb ers sufficient time to consult and seek instructions 
from their capitals.  
 
37. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________