RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/20 
29 June 2005 
 (05-2796) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Twentieth Special Session  
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 6 APRIL AND 10 MAY 2005 
 
Chairman:  Mr. Faizel Ismail (South Africa) 
 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA ............................................................................................1  
B. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................10  
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT AGENDA  
1. The Chairman  indicated that the draft agenda for the meeting was contained in 
Airgram WTO/AIR/2537 of 21 March 2005.  
2. The representative of India  said that though he did not wish to add anything to the agenda, he 
wanted to address an important issue in this regard .  He said that no informal consultations had been 
held to discuss the agenda on which his capital had st rong views.  He said that a detailed fax had been 
sent highlighting the manner in which the Chairman, ra ther than the Members, wished to structure the 
work of the Special Session of the Committee on Tr ade and Development (Special Session) in the 
coming months.  His delegation regretted that the Ch airman had not deemed it  appropriate to consult 
Members before laying down the "roadmap".  If consultations had been held on the issue, his 
delegation would have made it clear that while it was willing to go along, and strongly supported a 
discussion on the Agreement-specific proposals, it w as not, at that stage prepared to get into a 
discussion on the cross-cutting issues.  He said that  while the July Decision mandated the Special 
Session to address "other outstanding work includi ng on the cross-cutting issues", it did not call for 
any recommendations, and did not indicate any time line for completing work on those issues.  It 
merely instructed the Special Sess ion to "report, as appropriate, to the General Council".  On the other 
hand, the July Decision instructed the Special Sessi on "to expeditiously complete the review of all 
outstanding Agreement-specific proposals and report to the General Council, with clear 
recommendations for a decision, by July 2005".  It w as therefore clear that the priority accorded to the 
Agreement-specific proposals was higher than that acco rded to the cross-cutting issues.  However, the 
proposed agenda in the Chairman's fax seemed to acco rd parity in priority to the two issues, by 
providing for a discussion on the Agreement-specific  proposals at that day's meeting, and on the 
cross-cutting issues at the meeting scheduled the foll owing day.  That, in his delegation's view, was a 
clear misreading of the mandate given to the Special Session. 
3. He continued by saying that for the past several months a lot of time and effort had been spent 
in discussing the Chairman's conceptu al approach, which in effect related to the cross-cutting issues.  
As a result, progress on the Agreement-specific propo sals had languished.  That was not in keeping 
with the priorities laid out in the July Decision.   His delegation could not therefore agree to a 
discussion on the cross-cutting issues until ther e was clear progress on the Agreement-specific 
proposals, especially on those tabl ed by the least-developed countries (LDCs).  He recalled that as TN/CTD/M/20 
Page 2  
 
reflected in the minutes of the last meeting of th e Special Session held on 8 February 2005, "it was 
suggested by the LDCs and endorsed by other Members that the work begin by addressing the 
remaining LDC Agreement-specific proposals as a matter of  priority".  It was clear there had been no 
agreement to start discussing the cr oss-cutting issues.  He therefore proposed that the agenda for the 
meeting be restricted only to the Agreement-specifi c proposals.  Only after all the Agreement-specific 
proposals had been discussed and clear progress achie ved, at least on the LDC Agreement-specific 
proposals, could the cross-cutting issues be taken up.  He said that his delegation was willing to 
engage constructively in the discussions on all th e Agreement-specific proposals with a view to 
reaching agreement on language that would be accepta ble to all Members.  In that context, his 
delegation looked forward to s uggestions from other Members to help reach consensus on the 
proposals.  However, to ensure that progress on special and differential treatment (S&D) was not 
limited only to the Category I and Category III pro posals which were being addressed in the Special 
Session, his delegation wished to see a clear link be tween the work of the Special Session and those 
bodies to which the Category II proposals had been referre d.  He said that a clear priority would need 
to be assigned to the work in those bodies in order for work to gain momentum.   
4. He said that paragraph 44 of the Doha Minister ial Declaration referred to the review of all 
S&D provisions with a view to strengthening th em and making them more precise, effective and 
operational.  The reference was to the existing st ructures of S&D provisions.  However, the ideas 
enumerated in the Chairman's conceptual appro ach seemed to suggest a new classification of the 
proposals focusing only on flexibility and capacity build ing.  Interestingly, improving market access 
for developing countries, a vital component of S&D meas ures, had been left out of that classification.  
He said that in the G-20 Ministerial Declaration is sued after their recent meeting held in New Delhi 
on 19 March 2005, "Ministers cautioned against an y move that would create divisions among 
developing countries, including through further categorization".  That clear statement from the G-20 Ministers needed to be borne in mind while pro ceeding with the work of the Doha Development 
Agenda (DDA) on S&D.  If Members were  to ach ieve progress on S&D, they needed to focus on 
those proposals which were meaningful and of real commercial value to developing countries and 
LDCs.  In fact, Members needed to take advantag e of the presence of the non-resident WTO Members 
in Geneva that week, to have a substantial di scussion on the LDC Agreement-specific proposals with 
the objective of ensuring better market access for their products.  He reiterated that the 
Agreement-specific proposals were a crucial elemen t in ensuring progress in the ongoing negotiations.  
Unless there was significant and visible progress on those issues by July, it would be difficult to 
visualize progress on other issues, in the build up to the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. 
5. The representative of Malaysia
 agreed with the concerns expressed by the representative of 
India and supported the suggestion that Members a ddress the LDC proposals at that meeting and the 
meeting scheduled for the following day.  Clearly, th ere were divergent views on the approach to the 
work on S&D and the Chairman would have to hold fu rther consultations on that.  She suggested that 
if Members could not agree on the agenda for that  meeting, then the Special Session should suspend 
any discussion on the cross-cutting issues and only discuss the LDC proposals.  Since there was no 
consensus on the proposed roadmap and not much ti me was left for fulfilling the mandate in the 
July Decision for making recommendations by July 2005, it was best that Members proceed as suggested by the representative of India.  She said that her delegation was not comfortable with the 
clustering of proposals into the two clusters of fl exibility and capacity building.  A large number of 
Members had initially not been comfortable with the previous categorization of proposals into 
Categories I, II and III and further clustering was not  going to help Members in making progress.  She 
hoped that the Chairman would take her comment s into account when cons idering how to move 
forward. 
6. The representative of China
 said that the July Package gave  a different weightage to the 
Agreement-specific proposals than to the cross-cutting issues.  Though his delegation was open to 
discussing the agenda, there was no doubt that prior ity should be given to the Agreement-specific 
proposals.    TN/CTD/M/20 
 Page 3 
 
 
7. The representative of Thailand  supported the points made by the representative of India, 
especially the fact that the Agreement-specific propo sals made by the LDCs be discussed first, and the 
other proposals be addressed after that.  According to the July Decision, the cross-cutting issues had 
not been given the same priority so it was b est for those issues to be addressed after the 
Agreement-specific proposals.  His delegation also  agreed that the clustering approach, although 
helpful in certain ways, was missing an important component related to market access which would 
help to fulfil the mandate of making S&D mo re precise, effective and operational.   
8. The representative of Kenya  said that her delegation wished to make it clear that the LDC 
Agreement-specific proposals should also include proposals tabled by other Members, but which 
contained an LDC component.  She said that the African Group preferred a simple and straight 
forward work plan, given that there was not much time left before the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference, and it also hoped to have substantive a nd economically valuable resu lts by that time.  Her 
delegation's preference was therefore to address all the Agreement-specific proposals before 
embarking on the cross-cutting issues.  That was the mandate contained in the July Decision which had stipulated that the Special Session expeditiously  complete the review of all Agreement-specific 
proposals and report to the General Council with clea r recommendations for a decision by July 2005.  
She said that the Special Session should not be seen to be deviating or modifying the Doha Mandate.  
Therefore, it was important that the work on S&D be guided not only by the July Decision but also by paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-Relate d Issues and Concerns and paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration.  She said that the African Group expected the work on the Agreement-specific proposals to be completed by July 2005.   
9. The Chairman
 pointed out that the LDC Agreement-specific proposals could be addressed as 
a matter of priority and the other Agreement-specifi c proposals taken up thereafter, and suggested that 
Members should now move on to the substance of the meeting.   
10. The representative of Colombia  said that the fax sent out detailing the programme of work 
was not available in Spanish and therefore she was no t clear how work was to proceed.  It seemed that 
a number of doubts had been raised with respect to the fax.  She said that although the fax highlighted 
the fact that priority would be given to the LD C Agreement-specific proposals, it did not seem clear 
that Members would proceed in that way.   She said that her delegation supported a discussion on the 
Agreement-specific proposals with priority being given to the LDC Agreement-specific proposals.  
That discussion should involve a review of how each  of the proposals had evolved through the course 
of the negotiations as a lot of time had elapsed sinc e the proposals had first been tabled.  After that 
work was completed,  Members could move on to addressing the cross-cutting issues, in line with the 
July Decision. 
11. The representative of Mexico  said that her delegation supporte d, like many other Members, 
addressing the remaining LDC Agreement-specific propo sals as a matter of priority.  She reiterated 
Members' commitment in paragraph 44 of the Doha  Ministerial Declaration and the July Decision 
which called upon the Special Session to make "clear  recommendations for a decision" by July 2005.  
She said that her delegation had concerns about some of the elements in the Chairman's approach for 
future work that had been put before Members in December 2004.  Those informal suggestions 
seemed to be shaping the work of the Special Session, and in that context her delegation agreed with 
the representative of India regarding both the procedur e and substance of the work to be carried out.  
With respect to the substance,  she said that the Chairman's fax of 16 March 2005, divided the 
remaining proposals into two clusters, one on fl exibility and the other on technical assistance and 
capacity building.  It was not clear how Members would address the issue of market access for products of export interest to developing countries,  which in her delegation's view was one of the 
elements included in the Chairman's informal sugg estions for future work.  It was clear that the 
highest priority for developing country Members was to reduce the barriers that affected the exports 
of goods and services from their countries.  If the Doha Development Round was to be successful, it 
was necessary to provide effective market access,  not seek solutions through concepts such as TN/CTD/M/20 
Page 4  
 
"situational approach", which had th us far shown little or no relevance to reality, and therefore did not 
need to be further discussed.  She said that it was important for Members to focus on an approach that 
would allow them to fulfil the mandate and not burden the negotiations which could be 
counterproductive.  She reiterated her delegation' s willingness to fulfil the mandate, and requested 
that it be involved in any consultations that may be he ld to explore ways to take the work forward.   
12. The representative of Canada
 said that in the past Members had engaged in many discussions 
on how to take the work on S&D forward.  From her delegation's perspective it was important for 
Members to address the Agreement-specific proposals.  However, it was also important that either 
separately or in parallel, as had been outlined in the Chairman's fax, Members had a chance to discuss 
the underlying issues being raised by the proposals.  Her delegation was willing to engage fully in the 
process but it wished to ensure that the many subm issions relating to the cross-cutting issues that had 
been tabled in the Special Session, and had not ye t been addressed, were di scussed.  She suggested 
that Members begin work based on the proposed age nda.  She said that the informal consultations 
held by the Chairman had led him to conclude that  that was the best way to proceed.  All proposals 
that were outstanding, except those in Category II, were included in what the Chairman had suggested 
should be taken up.  If Members wished to add anot her category, that was not a problem.  What was 
important was that Members begin their work.   
13. The representative of Brazil  supported what had been said by other developing country 
Members.  Though the Chairman's fax mentioned that priority would be given to the LDC Agreement-specific proposals, it would still be prem ature to start discussing the cross-cutting issues 
after the LDC proposals at that meeting.   His delegation was open to a discussion on the cross-cutting 
issues but at a later stage.  It would also be useful to be informed on how the Category II proposals 
were being addressed in other bodies before proceedi ng with a discussion on the cross-cutting issues.   
14. The representative of Zambia
 said that at the last meeting of the Special Session held on 
8 February 2005, her delegation had requested that Members address without further delay, the 
existing LDC Agreement-specific proposals.  She said th at it was her delegation's firm conviction that 
Members were committed to a full, effective and meaningful integration of the LDCs into the 
international trading system.  To that end, the d ecision to give priority to the LDC proposals would 
need to be followed up with concrete actions by agreeing on language th at made S&D provisions 
mandatory and operational so as to allow for thei r full and effective utilization.  Her delegation 
therefore anticipated prioritization of all LDC Agre ement-specific proposals.  She requested that all 
the LDC Agreement-specific proposals, which included proposals no. 23, 36, 38, 84 and 88 as 
contained in the Chairman's fax, be treated on a fast-track basis.   
15. The representative of Egypt  said that his delegation supported the points raised by the 
representative of India and the representative of Kenya on behalf of the African Group.  His delegation felt that though it was premature to emba rk on a discussion of the cross-cutting issues, that 
did not mean that those issues should be removed from the agenda.  He said that achieving progress 
on the Agreement-specific proposals would provide comfort for delegations to start discussing the 
cross-cutting issues.  Moreover, discussing the two i ssues in parallel would be complicated.  Hence, 
his delegation could accept the amendment sugg ested by the representative of India.  
16. The representative of the United States
 said that all Members were attempting to achieve 
progress and fulfil the mandate contained in the Ju ly Decision, even though Members may have 
different views on how best to do that.  One of the concerns that her delegation had was that Members 
had followed, for the past three years, an appro ach which a number of Members were putting forward, 
but which had not resulted in real progress.  It was in light of that that Members had been attempting to explore an alternative approach to the work on S& D.  It was clear that all Members were prepared 
to focus on the LDC proposals.  Addressing those propo sals, in the context of different ways in which 
the WTO could solve some of the problems, was a useful way ahead.  Her delegation would find it 
difficult to proceed by simply focu sing on the individual proposals, since it saw no util ity on focusing  TN/CTD/M/20 
 Page 5 
 
 
solely on the individual proposals without having a discussion on how those proposals might be addressed in the context of the broader underlying issues.   
17. The representative of Switzerland
 said that her delegation supported what had been said by 
the representative of Canada.  Her delegation wished  to see progress being made so that the mandate 
contained in the July Decision could be fulfilled.  She said that in preparation for the meeting, her 
delegation had worked through all the 17 proposals cont ained in Annex I of the Chairman's fax.  Her 
delegation had come up with some proposed amendm ents to the proposals, including methodologies 
which could be applied to the Monitoring Mechanis m, which was clearly a cross-cutting issue.  She 
said that if the negotiations on S&D excluded di scussions on the cross-cutting issues until all the 
Agreement-specific proposals had been addressed,  Members would not be able to make any 
constructive suggestions on how to address the rema ining proposals.  If Members wished to be 
constructive, they needed to be  open to a discussion on the cross-cutting issues.  Her delegation was 
ready to work and had ideas and text on each of the 17  proposals.  With respect to clustering, she said 
that her delegation was open to how this would be done. 
18. The representative of Ecuador  said that his delegation agreed with, among others, the 
representatives of India, Mexico, Colombia and Brazil.   He said that the Chairman's fax of 16 March 
presumably reflected the consultations that had b een held.  However, his delegation had not been 
invited to take part in any of those consultations and therefore the fax was not fully reflective of all 
Members' views.  That did not mean to say that hi s delegation did not consider  S&D to be important.  
His delegation, however, felt that discussing the cross-cutting issues at this stage was rather 
premature.  Members needed to first address th e remaining Agreement-specific proposals and then 
ensure that proposals referred to other WTO bodies  were being addressed.  With respect to the 
clustering of the proposals, he agreed that ma rket access was just as important as flexibility and 
capacity building.   
19. The representative of Argentina  said that his delegation shared the concerns that had been 
expressed by the representative of India and other Members, particularly with respect to completing 
work on the Agreement-specific proposals before ta king up the cross-cutting issues.  That of course 
did not mean that the cross-cutting issues should be  removed from the agenda.  The July Decision 
mandated that these issues also be dealt with in the Special Session.   There was also the possibility 
that while addressing the Agreement-specific proposals,  some cross-cutting issues could be raised and 
enable Members to make progress on some of the pro posals.  If that was the case, then the two would 
not need a separate item on the agenda.  He said th at perhaps continuing work along those lines could 
solve the agenda issue.  In any case, his delegation did not think that the cross-cutting issues should be 
included in the agenda of that meeting.   
20. The representative of Peru  said that for his delegation it was important that all the 
Agreement-specific proposals were addressed, taking up those by the LDCs as a matter of priority.  His delegation was not ready to address the cross-cutting issues at that meeting and was therefore not 
in a position to accept the item on cross-cutting issues on the agenda.  With respect to the issue of 
clustering, he said that it was important not to lose sight of the importance of market access which was essential for Peru.   
21. The representative of Australia
 said that his delegation had always made it clear that it was 
flexible on how best to proceed, in order to make as much progress as possible.  In that regard, his 
delegation had been prepared to go along with the Chairman's approach which was a new and 
different way of tackling the work on S&D and something that could help take the discussions 
forward.  His delegation had been keen to avoi d going back to addressing the proposals as had been 
done in the past as that had not resulted in much  progress.  The Agreement-specific proposals were 
important and therefore, his delegation had a prob lem in addressing them on priority, especially those 
by the LDCs.  However, the question of the cro ss-cutting issues was something that Members could 
not hide from.  Even as Members addressed th e Agreement-specific proposals, some of the TN/CTD/M/20 
Page 6  
 
cross-cutting issues would become apparent and would come out through the discussions on the Agreement-specific proposals.  In his delegation's view, the July Decision clearly required Members 
to give some attention to the cr oss-cutting issues.  He reiterated that his delegation felt that the 
benefits from issues related to market access woul d come out of the negotiations on agriculture, 
services and non-agricultural market access (NAM A) and not only through the S&D Work 
Programme.  This had been recognised in how th e Chairman had put forward his approach.   
22. The representative of th e European Communities
 said that her delegation was surprised by 
some Members' reaction to the Chairman's proposed st ructure of  work for the meeting.  She said that 
at the February meeting of the Special Session, Members had been positive and there had seemed to 
be an understanding that it was important to make progr ess in order to fulfil the July 2005 deadline.  It 
was therefore surprising that as Members were a bout to begin addressing the individual proposals, 
some Members suddenly had a number of concerns.  The cross-cutting issues were part of the July 
Package and needed to be addressed.  Her delegation did not mind whether they were addressed in parallel or after the discussions on the Agreement-sp ecific proposals, but it was important to discuss 
the Agreement-specific proposals as we ll as the cross-cutting issues.   
23. The representative of Japan
 said that it was regrettable that after lengthy discussions, both 
informal and formal, Members, at the last moment, could not reach consensus on how to proceed with 
the work.  His delegation had repeatedly stat ed that while addressing the Agreement-specific 
proposals, Members would need to be flexible , and discussing the Agreement-specific proposals 
along with the cross-cutting issues would help in making progress.  His delegation was willing to address the Agreement-specific proposals, giving priority to the LDC proposals, but could not go 
along with the suggestion that the cross-cutting i ssues be taken up only after the Agreement-specific 
proposals had been addressed. 
24. The representative of Korea
 said that his delegation shared the concerns raised by the 
representative of India and others.  However, that was not to say that the cross-cutting issues should 
not be addressed.  It was just that there was not  too much time until the July 2005 deadline and it 
would be best to begin discussing the Agreement- specific proposals.  After that, Members could 
decide how best to deal with  the cross-cutting issues.   
25. The Chairman  said that his fax of 16 March 2005 clearly stated that Members would focus on 
the Agreement-specific proposals, addressing the LD C proposals as a matter of priority and could 
then discuss the cross-cutting issues.  He said that the remaining Categories I and III 
Agreement-specific proposals had been  re-clustered into two groups , one on flexibility and the other 
on capacity building.  As Members were aware, th e 88 proposals that had been tabled on S&D dealt 
with three issues; flexibility, capacity building and ma rket access.  He said that he was aware that 
some Members had questioned why a cluster on ma rket access had not been included and that was 
something that could be created if Members so wish ed.  However, Members needed to remember that 
most of the proposals relating to market access had b een referred to the relevant bodies.  He said 
Members should also note that among the proposals in the flexibility cluster there was only one 
proposal tabled by the LDCs, which specifically re lated to market access and there were two more 
proposals relating to market access under the Agreemen t on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).  It was his 
understanding that Members might wish to drop the proposals made on the ATC as that Agreement was no longer relevant.  However, Members were fr ee to take these up if they so wished.  He hoped 
that Members would reflect over the market acces s proposals and whether these should be discussed 
in the Special Session, because in th e past many Members had felt that the appropriate forum to deal 
with those proposals was in the negotiating groups .  The only exception was perhaps the proposal by 
the LDCs which related specifically to the issue of ma rket access.  Apart from that, he did not feel that 
the proposals fell under any grouping other than that of flexibility and capacity building.  He said that 
after going over all the proposals it seemed that they were calling for three things:  increased 
flexibility;  increased capacity;  a nd deeper market access than what  existed through the existing S&D  TN/CTD/M/20 
 Page 7 
 
 
provisions.  He said that if Members wished to just discuss the proposals without clustering them, then that too was not a problem.   
26. He went on to say that over the past year he had held intensive consu ltations with Members, 
during which some Members had emphasised the need  to address the Agreement-specific proposals, 
while other Members had emphasised the need to ad dress the cross-cutting issues.  He said that there 
had been an impasse because both sides could not  agree on how to proceed, including because of the 
fact that there were a number of  cross-cutting issues that Members had serious disagreements about.  
Those related to the issues of graduation and differen tiation.  He said that he had, in a number of 
consultations, made it clear that he would not discu ss graduation because it was a very divisive issue.  
He had also mentioned that the question of diffe rentiation had been substantially addressed during 
discussions on the development section of the Ju ly Decision, deliberations on which he had 
facilitated.  That discussion related to how to addr ess the different challenges that small, vulnerable 
countries faced, without creating a sub-category of Me mbers.  Therefore, some of the difficult issues 
had in a way been addressed and Members were attempting to move forward and resolve the 
remaining Agreement-specific proposals.  It wa s clear that Members had reached an understanding 
that they were all going to work together to addr ess the proposals without being confrontational.  He 
had all along urged Members to contribute positi vely to the discussions and propose new language 
and, where necessary, redraft some of the proposal s so as to make progress.  He said that Members 
had agreed that the LDC proposals should be addr essed as a matter of priority.  However, Members 
would have to discuss the cross-cutting issues even  though the Agreement-specific proposals could be 
discussed first.  It was clear from consultations and minutes of past meetings, that the discussions had 
basically highlighted the need for greater flexibility and the need fo r increased capacity.  Both these 
issues were as relevant as the Agreement-specific proposals and there could be significant delivery for 
developing countries, particularly the more needy among them, if these underlying issues were 
addressed.  He said that unfortunately Members we re repeating positions that they had made in 
consultations over the past several months.  He had over time consulted all the groups including, the 
African Group, the LDCs, the Caribbean countries, some Ambassadors individually and collectively, 
and some Ministers.  However, he had not received an y serious objections to the approach that he had 
proposed.  Even now, he was willing to go back and take up these issues with the Ambassadors.  It 
was his feeling that Members did not have a se rious objection to taking up the Agreement-specific 
proposals and discussing the cross-cutting issues as work moved forward.  That was his understanding of the views expressed in the consultations.  So me Members no doubt, would prefer to discuss the 
cross-cutting issues after July, or the Hong Kong Ministerial, or even after the Round had been 
concluded.  However, that would not assist Memb ers in moving forward as it was important to have a 
discussion on those issues.  Members needed to come to an understanding that even though the 
priority was on the Agreement-specific proposals,  beginning with those by the LDCs, which had 
highlighted five proposals that they wished to addr ess, the cross-cutting issues would also need to be 
discussed.   
27. The representative of India
 said that it was particularly di stressing to hear some delegations 
say that Members had, over the past three years, followed an approach which had failed.  That was 
disconcerting because S&D was at the heart of the DDA and if Members failed to address the Agreement-specific proposals it would send a wrong signal.  He said that Members had not really engaged in the past and it was therefore not corre ct to say that work on S&D had failed.  His 
delegation was aware that the Chairman intended to give priority to the LDC Agreement-specific 
proposals.  What his delegation was attempting to str ess was that priority shou ld mean progress.  That 
was essential before moving on to the cross-cutting issu es.  Otherwise, Members would just engage in 
discussions, stick to their same positions, there woul d be no change of langua ge, and then discussions 
would move on to the cross-cutting issues.  That was what his delegation was objecting to and what it 
felt was unacceptable.  He said that he was pleased  to hear the Chairman state that Members discuss 
all the Agreement-specific proposals before moving on to the cross-cutting issues.  He therefore 
suggested that under agenda ite m B, the reference to the "1
st Thematic Cluster on Flexibility" be 
deleted, so that it just read Agreement-specific proposals.  That would then mean that all the TN/CTD/M/20 
Page 8  
 
remaining Agreement-specific proposals including th ose included in the thematic cluster on capacity 
building would be taken up, before discussing the cross-cutting issues. 
28. The representative of Djibouti
 agreed that lack of progress on S&D would affect the 
negotiations.  He said that although it was important for Members to agree on what issues to address 
first, he did not see that to be a problem.  Members need ed to be flexible in order to move forward.  It 
was important for the Geneva Week participants to leave with some sense of the negotiations on 
S&D.  He said that it was true that Members had b een consulted on how to move forward.  However, 
it was clear that some Members still had concer ns.  The problem was in understanding what S&D 
really was.  In that context, he suggested that pe rhaps the Secretariat could provide an analysis on the 
basic principles and objectives of S&D.  His count ry had always been aware that there were 
conditionalities on S&D, although at times these were  not mentioned.  Merely because a country was 
an LDC or part of the African Group it would not be automatically granted speci al treatment.  He said 
that all Members needed to assume their responsib ilities so that consensus-based solutions could be 
found and so that the negotiations could move forward.   
29. The representative of Kenya  said that the African Group was willing to engage constructively 
in the negotiations on S&D.  However, they wished  to finalize all the remaining Agreement-specific 
proposals before moving on to address the cross-cu tting issues.  The mandate in the July Decision 
clearly directed the Special Session to make clear recommendations on the remaining Agreement-specific proposals to the General Council by  July 2005.  However, with respect to the 
cross-cutting issues, the July Decision stated that  the Special Session should report as appropriate to 
the General Council, without specifying any deadline.   She therefore urged that the Special Session 
address the Agreement-specific proposals in accordan ce with the mandate contained in the July 
Decision. 
30. The Chairman
 reiterated that what he had proposed was that Members address the remaining 
Agreement-specific proposals, beginning with those by the LDCs, and the other issues taken up after 
that.  He said that the thrust of the consultations he ld over the past several months had been on how to 
unlock the impasse, and one of the compromise s that Members had suggested was that the 
cross-cutting issues should be discussed along with the Agreement-specific proposals, albeit with 
priority being given to the latter.  That was also  his understanding of the mandate contained in the 
July Package.  He said that if some Members we re now suggesting that the cross-cutting issues be 
discussed only after discussions on the Agreement-speci fic proposals had been concluded, then there 
was clearly a divergence of views on the proposed agenda.   
31. The representative of Malaysia  accepted that her delegation had a problem with the agenda 
and suggested that for that particular meeting, the agenda item relating to cross-cutting issues be 
deleted and that consultati ons be held to discuss the agenda for th e next meeting.  She also said that 
there should be no clustering and that all th e proposals be addressed as they were.   
32. The representative of Canada  said that her delegation was willing to proceed on the basis that 
if a Member, during the debate on the Agreement-spec ific proposals, wished to raise anything relating 
to the proposal, it would be allowed to do so.  She said that Members would obviously have to deal 
with the cross-cutting issues at some  stage as that too was part of the mandate contained in the July 
Decision.   
33. The representative of Pakistan  said that the practice generally was to exhaust the discussion 
on an agenda item before moving on to the next ite m.  Therefore, her delegation could go along with 
the proposal related to the deletion under agenda item B of "1st Thematic Cluster on Flexibility" and 
urged other Members to do the same.   
34. The Chairman  said that if Members were going back on the understandings that he believed 
had been reached during the consulta tions on the way forward, then it was perhaps best to suspend the  TN/CTD/M/20 
 Page 9 
 
 
meeting and meet with Heads of Delegation to seek  guidance on how to move forward.  He said he 
had earlier had a positive meeting with the LDCs a nd felt that Members would have been able to 
make progress on the LDC proposals during those two days. 
35. The representative of Rwanda  said that though her delegation was looking forward to a 
substantive debate on the LDC proposals, listening to the debate that had taken place she supported 
the Chairman's suggestion to suspen d the meeting in order to allow him to consult Ambassadors.  She 
did not believe that the situation was as negative as it seemed since it was clear that Members agreed that the Agreement-specific proposals, beginning with those by the LDCs, be addressed as a matter of priority.  Members' positions on the cross-cutting issu es were not hard and fast but rather conditional 
in terms of first completing work on the Agreem ent-specific proposals.  Finally, she said that 
discussions on the cross-cutting issues should not only include flexibility and capacity building, but 
also market access. 
36. The representative of India
 clarified that his delegation was ready to begin substantive 
discussions on the Agreement-specific proposals, be ginning with the LDC proposals as priority. 
37. The representative of Djibouti  said that he agreed with the representative of Rwanda that the 
Chairman consult Ambassadors on how to proceed.  He  also said that it was regrettable that Members 
were moving backwards after all the work that  had been done over the past months.   
38. The representative of Egypt  said that Members had made progress since the July Decision and 
he did not agree that Members had reached an impasse.  It was clear that Members had reached a point where they understood each other more than befo re.  He did not believe that discussions at that 
meeting had been negative;  what Members were attempting to address was the sequencing and timing 
of the remaining work.  He agreed that it would be  useful to suspend the meeting in order to allow 
Members to consult among themselves and for the Chai rman to meet the Ambassadors.  He reiterated 
that when discussing the Agreement-specific proposal s any Member should be able to raise any issue 
that it felt was relevant to that proposal. 
39. The Chairman
 said that it seemed that some Member s had reviewed the positions they had 
expressed at the informal consultations, unless hi s own interpretation of those positions was not 
correct.  He believed that the best way to go forward was to allow Members time to consult among themselves.  That would also allow him to consul t Ambassadors in order to ascertain how best to 
move forward.   
40. The meeting was accordingly suspended
 and thereafter reconvened  on 10 May 2005.   
41. At the outset, the Chairman  recalled that Members had been una ble to engage in a substantive 
discussion on 6 April due to concerns with the age nda.  However, he was pleased that after intense 
consultations with Members, it had been agreed to take up the LDC Agreement-specific proposals on 
priority.  He said a lot of time had been lost a nd if Members were to make tangible progress by July, 
which he was convinced they wished to do, they need ed to be flexible and address the work with the 
requisite political will.   
42. He added that at the last meeting, the LDCs ha d highlighted the proposals that they wished to 
be taken up as a matter of priority.  Those incl uded proposals no 23, 36, 38, 84 and 88 which had been 
made available to Members prior to the meeti ng, and which included, in cases where the proposals 
had been discussed earlier at length, the last langua ge considered.  He urge d Members to remain open 
and engage in the discussions in a constructive ma nner so as to deliver on the commitments made at 
Doha, as well as those contained in the July Decisi on.  He suggested that the proposals be taken up 
one by one, in an informal mode, in the orde r in which they appeared in the document. 
43. The meeting thereafter continue d in an informal mode.   TN/CTD/M/20 
Page 10  
 
44. During the informal consultations Member s considered the five remaining LDC 
Agreement-specific proposals, which included, a pro posal relating to the Understanding in Respect of 
Waivers of Obligations under the GATT 1994;  a proposal relating to the Agreement on Trade-
Related Investment Measures;  a proposal relati ng to the Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-
Developed Countries, tabled by the African Group  for the benefit of LDCs;  and two proposals 
relating to the Enabling Clause. 
45. While introducing their proposals, the proponents highlighted some of the problems they 
faced and which they felt needed to be addressed, including problems relating to  coherence, the need 
for flexibility that took into account their tr ade and development needs, as well as credit for 
autonomous liberalization.  While Members were sympathetic to the problems faced by the LDCs, 
they remained concerned about the open-ended exemp tions that were being sought in a number of the 
proposals.  Some Members felt that seeking such  exemptions would not necessarily lead to 
development and would instead lead to a deroga tion from the rules to which even the LDCs had 
agreed.  Some Members also pointed out that a lot had happened since the proposals were first tabled 
in 2002, including the fact that some of the issues contained in the proposals were now being 
addressed as part of the ongoing negotiations.  In that  context, it was suggested that the LDCs redraft 
some of their proposals.  While the LDCs agreed  that some issues were being dealt with in the 
ongoing negotiations, they felt that a redressal of th ese issues would only be for a limited period of 
time and that longer-term solutions would only co me about through the S&D Work Programme.  
However, they expressed their willingness to cont inue working on their proposals and to try and 
formulate language that would be acceptable to all Members. 
46. At the end of the discussions the Chairman
 thanked Members for the constructive manner in 
which they had engaged and hoped that the suggestio ns would provide a useful basis for the LDCs to 
redraft their proposals.  He did, however, point out to Members that it was not just the responsibility of the LDCs, but also that of the other Member s to work towards coming up with possible language 
that took into account the different views that had b een expressed.  In that context, he suggested that 
Members work with the LDCs to assist them in redrafting their proposals.  He would hold further 
informal consultations based on the revised la nguage, after which Members could decide on the 
agenda for the next meeting.   
B. O
THER BUSINESS  
47. Since no issue had been proposed for discussi on under "Other Business" the meeting was 
adjourned . 
__________