RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/28 
1 June 2007 
 
 (07-2263) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Twenty-Eight Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 26 APRIL 2007 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Burhan Gafoor (Singapore)  
  
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................................1  
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS .............................................................................................1  
C. OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES :  MONITORING MECHANISM .......................................................8  
D. OTHER BUSINESS ........................................................................................................................8  
 
  A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting as contai ned in airgram WTO/AIR/2994 of 10 April 2007 
was adopted .   
 
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
2. The Chairman  began by making some general comments on the work of the Special Session 
of the Committee on Trade and Development (Special Session) and the larger process in Geneva.  He 
said that at the informal TNC meeting held the pr evious week, there had been a clear understanding 
that the Geneva process would be intensified a nd proceed in parallel with other processes outside 
Geneva.  There had also been an understanding th at the Chairpersons of the different negotiating 
bodies would be asked to table their texts in the near future.  That meant that when texts were tabled, 
particularly in the areas of Agriculture and NAMA,  other negotiating groups would be expected to 
follow suit.  In that respect, it was important for th e Special Session not to be left behind as it did not 
work in isolation but rather coexisted in the larger  Geneva process.  It was not business as usual as 
Members were clearly entering the end game.  He said that Members needed  to remain focussed on 
the text-based discussions and avoid engaging in ge neral discussions as the Sp ecial Session needed to 
begin considering the landing zone on speci al and differential treatment (S&D).   
3. The Chairman  said that during the week he had held  a number of small group consultations 
on some of the Category I proposals.  He recalled that at the last formal meeting on 19 March, 
Members had been informed that the consultati ons on the Agreement-specific proposals had focused 
on six of the Category I proposals, namely on proposal no. 13 on Article XVIII of the GATT, proposal nos. 24 and 25 on the SPS Agreement and proposal nos. 28, 29 and 30 on the Agreement on 
Import Licensing.  Members had also considered on e Category III proposal, proposal no. 79 relating 
to the SPS Agreement.  He said that during th e informal consultations, Members had focused 
primarily on proposal no. 13 relating to Article XVIII of the GATT because of the divergences that 
remained on that proposal.  On the other five Cate gory I proposals, it was his sense that there was a TN/CTD/M/28 
Page 2  
 
  greater degree of convergence.  He recalled that at the last formal meeting, he had informed Members 
that it was his sense that building convergence on th e nine remaining Agreem ent-specific proposals, 
on the basis of the language currently on the table, would be difficult.  He was, however, willing to 
devote time to those proposals if Members put forward new language or new ideas.  Until that happened, his intention was to continue to work  on the other seven proposals.  He said that his 
intention at that meeting, was to continue work on the proposal on Article XVIII.  On the other five 
Category I proposals and on the one Category III propo sal, he would continue discussions in small 
group meetings.    
4. He said that informal discussions on the propo sal relating to Article XVIII had been held on 
the basis of the "catalogue of ideas" that had been circulated to Members at the formal meeting held 
on 19 March 2007.  During those consultations, the delegation of Egypt had tabled a revised text on 
Article XVIII which had been useful and was availa ble to Members at the back of the room.  While 
work remained to be done on that proposal, Members had been able to make some progress and slightly revise the proposal.  That revised language ha d also been made available at the back of the 
room.  He said that in paragraph one, although the text had not changed, Members had been able to 
get rid of the brackets that previously appeared around the phrase " which can only support low 
standards of living and are ".  That was because this language was already contained in Article XVIII 
of the GATT.  In paragraph two, the second sentence that appeared in bracket s incorporated elements 
of the delegation of Egypt's proposal.  In a ddition, brackets had been added around the words 
"implemented, interpreted and ".  He hoped that further discussions on that proposal would build on 
the progress that had already been made in the small group meetings.   
5. Discussions on proposal XVIII continued in an in formal mode.  Despite lengthy deliberations, 
positions remained divergent and Members were unabl e to revise the language.  It was agreed that 
work on the proposal would continue in small group m eetings on the basis of the catalogue of ideas.   
6. The meeting reverted back to a formal mode .   
7. The Chairman
 then updated Members on the status of the Category II proposals.  He informed 
Members that in accordance with the mandate  contained in paragraph 37 of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration, he had written to all th e Chairs of those bodies to which the Category II 
proposals had been referred, emphasi sing the need to conclude work on them.  He had conveyed the 
importance and urgency of this to the Chairs of those bodies and reminded them that they would be 
required to report to the next Gene ral Council meeting on the status of the Category II proposals.  The 
preliminary feedback that he had received from th e various bodies was that little had changed since 
these bodies had last reported.  At previous meetings  of the Special Session, he had presented the grim 
reality of the situation.  He said that he would underscore the need to make progress on the 
Category II proposals in his report to the General Council.   
8. The representative of Kenya  said that the African Group continued to face the same problem 
as there had been no improvement in its ability to attend the different meetings where the Category II 
proposals were being addressed.  In the past, the African Group had requested that the Category II 
proposals be brought back to the Special Sessi on as it was the body mandated to make the S&D 
provisions more precise, effective and operational.  In the Group's view, addressing those proposals in 
the Special Session would help make progress.  That  request, had so far not been acceptable to other 
Members.  He recalled that in 2005, the then  General Council Chairman had promised that 
consultations would be held on the issue but this had not happened.  He urged the Chairman to raise 
these concerns with the Chairman of the Tr ade Negotiations Committee (TNC) as well as the 
Chairman of the General Council because if Members were to make progress then it was important to 
consider how to address the Category II proposals.    TN/CTD/M/28 
 Page 3 
 
 
  9. The representative of China  found it disappointing that no progress had been made on the 
Category II proposals.  As the representative of Kenya  had stated, something was needed to be done 
on the Category II proposals which in fact related to  important negotiating areas .  It was important not 
to leave everything until the last minute and dilute the development goals. 
10. The Chairman  said that the Special Session had to operate within the framework of what 
Ministers had mandated at Hong Kong.  He had complied with that mandate by continuing to 
coordinate the efforts of the Special Session with that of the other bodies to which the Category II proposals had been referred.  He would convey th e concerns expressed by Members to the other 
Chairpersons, including the Chairs of the TNC and the General Council.  He also intended to convey 
those concerns in his report to the General Council.  What he could not do was to alter the mandate of 
the Special Session and bring the proposals back to the Special Session for consideration.  That was a 
decision that not even the Chairman of the TNC could take, it was up to Members in the General 
Council to take that decision.   
11. The Chairman
 then took up the issue of providing duty-free quota-free (DFQF) market access 
to the LDCs in accordance with th e decision taken at Hong Kong.  He said that he had held informal 
consultations on the DFQF market access issue that week and had met the vari ous stakeholders to get 
a better sense of where they were in their internal processes with respect to the implementation of the 
decision.  His sense was that all stakeholders we re committed to the implementation of the decision 
and had encouraged them to con tinue consulting bilaterally because this was an issue on which only 
convergence among the stakeholders could bring about  a satisfactory outcome.  As the Chair, he 
would continue to encourage and facilitate a dial ogue among the different stakeholders.  He recalled 
that the LDCs had tabled two submissions, one on rules of origin and the other on market access.  
Members had engaged in preliminary discussions on those submissions in July 2006 and those 
Members with questions and concerns had been urge d to provide them in writing so as to make it 
easier for the LDCs to respond.  So far, nothing ha d been received in writing.  He therefore urged 
Members to reach out to one another and share th eir perspectives on the submissions in writing.   
12. On behalf of the LDCs, the representative of Zambia  thanked the Japanese Government for 
having implemented the DFQF decision.  The LD C Group hoped that that initiative would not be 
adversely affected by any non-tariff barriers that wo uld render it inoperative and inconsequential.  His 
delegation urged all other devel oped and developing countries to provide information on how they 
intended to implement the decision and provide market access to the LDCs in a manner that would result in the desired outcome.  The LDC Group was c oncerned by the apparent lack of engagement by 
other negotiating partners.  While the LDCs acknowledged the need to  adhere to prescribed domestic 
procedures, including the assessment of the possible impact of the DFQF market access decision, he stressed the need to fast track and expedite su ch internal processes.  The Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration clearly urged developed country Memb ers, and developing country Members in a position 
to do so, to provide LDCs with DFQF market a ccess by 2008, or no later than the start of the 
implementation period of the Round.  The LDCs were concerned that 2008 was just around the 
corner.  He urged the developed country Members to honour the commitment they had made in 2005, 
and to ensure that DFQF market  access was granted to LDCs and implemented without any further 
delay.  He said that while the LDCs appreciated th e steps taken thus far, it was important to keep in 
mind the complementary issues of flexible and transp arent rules of origin.  Up to now, Members had 
done little to fulfil the commitment made  in this regard at Hong Kong.  For the decision to result in 
commercially meaningful and practical market acc ess for the LDCs, Members needed to address both 
sides of the coin, that was, provide comprehensiv e product coverage on a tariff-line basis plus adopt 
simplified as well as transparent rules of origin.  He said that the Doha Round would be deprived of 
its development dimension if the LDCs market access package, as defined in Hong Kong, was not 
delivered in a timely manner.  The LDC Group re mained ready to engage constructively in the 
negotiations to ensure a successful conclusion of  the Round and hoped others would do the same. TN/CTD/M/28 
Page 4  
 
  13. The representative of Tanzania
 associated its delegation with the statement made by the 
representative of Zambia.  He said that the LDCs had tabled a submission on market access calling 
upon Members to implement the DFQF market access in  a manner that would enable LDCs to expand 
their exports and use trade as a tool for development.   The LDCs had stated in their submission that 
developed countries and developing countries declaring themselves in a position to do so, by the time 
they submitted their draft schedule of concessions, should indicate how they intended to implement 
the decision.  These Members had al so been asked to provide a provi sional list of the products they 
intended to initially exclude from the 97 per cent tari ff lines, the steps they intended to take to 
progressively achieve 100 per cent DFQF market access to all products from all LDCs, and the 
time-frame within which they inte nded to fulfill the decision.  Once those steps were complete, 
developed countries and developing countries decl aring themselves in a position to do so, could 
fine-tune the other details with the LDCs in order to provide them improved market access.  It had 
been over a year since Ministers had adopted that decision and there had been no substantial progress 
made during this period.  Members also needed to be  mindful of the fact that if high ambition levels 
were maintained in the DDA, duti es on many goods would, as it is, go down substantially.  In such a 
situation, the LDCs would have only a small window  of opportunity to take advantage of any DFQF 
market access accorded to them.  It was therefore important that the DFQF market access be granted 
to the LDCs as early as possible in order for it to be  of meaningful economic value to them, including 
by adopting simplified rules of origin.   
14. The representative of Lesotho  said that DFQF market access was an important component of 
the development package of the Doha Round of negotia tions and, in that cont ext, urged developed and 
developing countries to consider implementing the decision as early as possible.  As had been 
mentioned, the LDCs had tabled two submissions, one on rules of origin and the other on market 
access.  She said that while market access was impor tant, rules of origin were complimentary to 
market access.  Members needed to therefore cons ider the submission on rules of origin as it proposed 
ways in which rules of origin could ensure that improved market access would be beneficial to the 
LDCs.   
15. The representative of Cambodia  associated his delegation with the statement made by the 
representative of Zambia on behalf of the LDCs.  He drew Members' attention to the fact that if DFQF market access was provided to LDCs in a meaningful manner, 11 per cent of world population would be lifted out of poverty and the gap between rich and poor reduced dramatically.  The provision of 
meaningful DFQF market access meant that devel oped country members needed to consider a number 
of issues.  First, rules of origin needed to be tr ansparent and simple as me ntioned in paragraph 36 (b) 
of Annex F of the Hong Kong Declaration.  Second, the 97 per cent of DFQF market access defined at 
the tariff-line level needed to include products of e xport interest to the LDCs.  And third, unnecessary 
barriers to trade needed to be removed.  Under those conditions, the LDCs would be able to export 
their products to developed country markets a nd increase their incomes while the consumers of 
developed countries would have access to cheaper, high-quality products from LDCs. 
16. The representative of Uganda
 associated his delegation with the statements made by the other 
LDCs. 
17. The representative of Bangladesh  also associated his delegation with the statements made by 
the other LDCs.  He recalled the commitment ma de by Ministers at Hong Kong to provide DFQF 
market access for all products originating from all LDCs.  He urged Members to fulfill that 
commitment and to provide DFQF market access to LDCs on an expeditious basis.  His delegation 
understood the importance of completing internal procedures before implementing the decision.  
However, internal deliberations and complicated domestic procedures should not become obstacles to 
providing improved market access for the LDCs.  Hi s delegation hoped to see  a more positive attitude 
from developed as well as developing country  Members in implementing the decision.  TN/CTD/M/28 
 Page 5 
 
 
  18. The representative of the United States  shared the efforts her Government had been 
undertaking to implement the DFQF market access deci sion.  Her delegation had indicated on several 
occasions, that it was fully comm itted to faithfully implementing the terms of the decision as 
contained in Annex F of the Doha Ministerial Decl aration in a transparent manner, and in a manner 
that took on board other Members' concerns.  During that week, her delegation had tabled a 
submission in the Regular Session of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) informing 
Members of the process by which the US had been consulting with the public on their interests with 
regard to how it would implement the decision.  That information-sharing process had closed on 
15 April and all the comments received were ava ilable on the USTR website.  Those comments would 
be used as part of the US Government's decision-ma king process in order to define the parameters on 
how it would proceed with implementation.  He r delegation intended to consult further, both 
bilaterally and with various groups of Members to h ear their intentions and concerns.  She said that 
the US, along with its G4 and G6 partners, had intens ified its consultations to try to bridge differences 
on the market access issues in the larger negotiatio ns.  They had set a notional goal of reaching an 
agreement on the Doha Round by the end of 2007 and were also working towards implementing the 
DFQF decision by that time.  She said that her dele gation was ready to consult further on any issues 
including those related to rules of origin.   
19. The representative of Japan  said that the Government of Japan had notified the 
implementation of the DFQF market access decision and announced that it would enter into force on 
1 April 2007.  Briefly, the measu re covered 98 per cent of tariff lines and over 99 per cent of trade 
from LDCs.  With respect to the LDC submission on market access, it was his delegation's 
understanding that the DFQF market access decisi on agreed to at Hong Kong was an issue of 
implementation not negotiation.  Members needed to continue putting efforts towards implementing 
but it was not suitable to negotiate that issue in the Special Session.  With respect to rules of origin, 
the Government of Japan had already adopted simplifi ed rules of origin so that the LDCs could enjoy 
real benefits from the improved market access. 
20. The representative of Switzerland  said that the Government of Switzerland had also 
implemented the DFQF market access decision on 1 April 2007, as part of its Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) scheme and would notify its im proved scheme to the upcoming meeting of the 
Regular Session of the CTD.  That system consisted of a law on GSP as well as two ordinances;  the first on preferential tariffs and the second on rules of  origin.  In the past, the GSP scheme had been 
limited to a duration of ten years, a period that ha d ended on 28 February 2007.  However, the Swiss 
Parliament had unanimously adopted the entry into  force of a new law on the GSP on 1 March 2007, 
valid for an unlimited period of time.  On 16 Marc h 2007, the Federal Council, adopted the revised 
preferential tariffs ordinance which entered into force on 1 April 2007.  The Parliament's Foreign 
Policy Commission had been consulted beforehand on that ordinance and had unanimously welcomed 
its proposed revision.  He said that developing coun tries would continue to benefit from reductions on 
existing duties for goods imports, which meant DFQF access for almost all industrial products and for 
the most significant agricultural products.  The mo st important feature of the revised GSP was the 
introduction of DFQF market access for LDCs as decided at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 2005.  The ordinance provided DFQF market acc ess for all products originating from all LDCs.  
There was, however, a phasing in until September 2009 for broken rice, animal feed, cane and beet 
sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form, with  progressive tariff cuts.  That meant that for the 
products, there was a transition period until Septembe r 2009, after which there would be 100 per cent 
DFQF market access for LDCs.  Furthermore, the co mplete removal of duties and quota restrictions 
would also apply to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs).  Accordingly, all the countries 
eligible for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative would also be eligible for DFQF market access in the 
Swiss market. 
 TN/CTD/M/28 
Page 6  
 
  21. He went on to say that Swiss civil soci ety and the Swiss economy had welcomed the 
introduction of DFQF market access for LDCs and HI PCs.  The next step would be to revise the 
ordinance on rules of origin.  That revision woul d be undertaken in close cooperation with Norway 
and the EU, since together with Switzerland, they had agreed to  implement similar rules of origin.  
The aim was to ensure that preferential rules of  origin applicable to imports from LDCs were 
transparent and simple and contributed to facilitati ng market access.  With respect to the forum in 
which Members should discuss the DFQF market access issue, his delegation had already stated that 
in principle it supported the LDCs in terms of th e forum they felt the issue should be addressed.   
22. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation supported the LDCs 
endeavour to get an indication of  how developed country Members intended to implement the DFQF 
market access decision.  First, in terms of what they intended to do and when and second, in terms of 
how they intended to progressively achieve 100 pe r cent DFQF market acce ss, in case not already 
provided.  His delegation also supported the LD Cs in asking those developing country Members 
which were in a position to provide DFQF market  access to the LDCs, as to when and how they 
intended to provide DFQF market access to the LD CS.  This information wa s relevant and important 
to the LDCs' overall assessment of the benefits and results of the negotiations.  As mentioned by the 
representative of the US, the negotiations could co nclude soon, something his delegation certainly 
hoped.  The EU had met the standards set by Mi nisters at Hong Kong through the Everything But 
Arms Initiative and for those who were not aware of  that he was willing to provide the details.  The 
EU still had work to do on rules of origin and w as currently working on that.  His delegation was open 
to any pragmatic suggestions that  would result in a process that would put together and channel 
information to the LDCs.  This would facilitate a two-way dialogue which would enable the LDCs to 
communicate their interests and priorities.  With resp ect to the LDCs submission on rules of origin, he 
recalled that his delegation had, at the Special Sessi on meeting held in July 2006, stated that the idea 
of negotiating a single set of preferential rules of  origin for preference granting countries may not be 
realistic.  This was especially so because the negotia tions on non-preferential rules of origin had been 
going on for more than ten years and he feared that a similar exercise on preferential rules of origin 
would be a much more challenging task and could take  much longer.  It was his sense that effective 
implementation of the decision would most likely result from following the autonomous approach in which individual preference granting Members them selves worked towards improving their rules of 
origin.  Subsequently, Members could multilaterally re view those rules of origin regimes.  Although, 
his delegation did not support the notion of negotiati ng preferential rules of origin in the WTO, it was 
interested in better understanding th e rationale behind the LDCs proposal, so that it could take those 
concerns and interests into account when designing its ru les of origin regime.  In that context, he had 
a number of questions from Brussels on the issues of substantial transformation and cumulation.  
While he was happy to share those with Members, th ey were rather technical and it was perhaps best 
to follow them up directly with the LDCs, as had been suggested by the Chairman.  Basically, his 
delegation wished to know the rationale behind so me of the choices that had been made in the 
elements contained in the LDCs proposal in order to  help it better evaluate elements in its own rules 
of origin regime in line with the Hong Kong mandate. 
23. The Chairman
 requested that the delegation of the EC  make available its questions in writing 
to other Members.   
24. The representative of Canada  recalled that at a meeting of the Regular Session of the CTD in 
December 2006, it had provided a verbal report on its LDC tariff programme outlining its liberal rules 
of origin and its almost 100 per cent product cove rage, which was advanced at the 2002 G8 Summit in 
Kananaskis, Alberta.  Details of that intervention we re available in the minutes of that meeting.  He 
said that his delegation would formally notify details  of its programme at the upcoming meeting of the 
Regular Session of the CTD and woul d be happy to answer any questi ons both at that meeting and in 
the Special Session, as well as bilaterally w ith Members if the need to arose.    TN/CTD/M/28 
 Page 7 
 
 
  25. The representative of Brazil  reaffirmed his delegation's commitment to implementing the 
DFQF market access decision for LDCs adopted at  the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  Since 
2006, the Government of Brazil had been undertakin g domestic consultations required to implement 
the decision.  Consultations were currently being he ld with the private sector.  The signs were very 
encouraging in terms of ensuring comprehensive c overage of goods of mean ingful commercial value 
to the LDCs.  While he was in no position to indi cate when the decision would be implemented, he 
assured the LDCs that the issue was being pursued  expeditiously and seriously in Brazil.   
26. The representative of Norway  said that from 1 July 2002, Norway was providing DFQF 
market access for all goods originating from all LDCs .  That market access had been granted through 
Norway's GSP.  At present, the Norwegian Government was reviewing its GSP system.  Last week, 
the Working Group had presented its report for making further improvements to the scheme.  There 
was currently a public internet hearing of the repor t taking place in Norway, with a deadline of early 
June.  Thereafter, the Government and Parliament  would take the final decision on how to improve 
the Norwegian GSP.  The improvement would also include efforts to increase the use of the system, 
for example through some aid for trade-related elements.  Once the decision on improving the GSP 
was taken, his delegation would notify them th rough the Regular Session of the CTD, although his 
delegation was flexible in terms of the forum that LD Cs wished to discuss the is sue.  In the context of 
the work being carried out in the WTO to harmonize rules of origin, he said that his delegation had consistently, together with other Members, advocated  simple and transparent rules of origin.  This 
included clear provisions for substantial transforma tion that reflected current manufacturing processes 
and international trade.  The LDC submission on ru les of origin was based on such principles and 
would facilitate increased trade for LDCs.  Howe ver, the submission also contained a number of 
detailed technical issues which needed to be furt her studied by the Norwegian trade and customs 
experts.  Norway currently cooperated with its neig hbours to ensure that rules of origin relating to 
imports into European countries were as similar as practically possible.  His delegation would 
continue to engage with its partners on those issues. 
27. The representative of New Zealand
 recalled that her Government had introduced DFQF 
market access for all imports from all LDCs in Ju ly 2001.  New Zealand was currently considering 
whether there was information or analysis on trade flow s since this might be of interest to Members.  
If necessary, her delegation would revert to that issue in the future either in the Special Session or the 
Regular Session of the CTD. 
28. The representative of India  said that during the Director-General's consultative framework 
mechanism on cotton, held in the previous month, his delegation had made a statement on DFQF 
market access.  The Government of India was in the process of finalizing a package for DFQF 
treatment for LDCs which would cover the more im portant exports for the LDCs.  His delegation was 
presently engaged in discussions with the LDCs and with its domestic constituency regarding DFQF 
market access and hoped to implement the decision in the near future.   
29. The representative of China  said that China had done a lo t to expand market access for 
exports of LDCs.  In the previous year at the Ch ina African High-level Forum, China had decided to 
expand DFQF market access for LDC exports to co ver from about 100 to more than 400 tariff lines.  
Those tariff lines had been decided bilaterally with the beneficiary LDC Members.  That easily covered, if not 100 per cent, the majority of LDC e xports to China from a previous 94 per cent level.  
China would remain engaged in that process and w ould follow closely the measures taken by other 
Members to provide DFQF market access to LDCs.  His delegation was open to further exploring 
with the LDCs what China could do to incorporat e its bilateral contributions into the multilateral 
process.   
 TN/CTD/M/28 
Page 8  
 
  30. The representative of Zambia
 said that her delegation looked forward to receiving further 
information on the various proposals on improving DFQF  market access to the LDCs.  She said that 
the LDCs remained open and available to discuss an y issue with those Members that had indicated 
that they wished to do so.  She reiterated that the LDCs were still of the view that the DFQF market 
access issue was a negotiating issue that shoul d be addressed in the Special Session.   
31. The Chairman  said that that the exercise of sharing information on national implementation 
plans and procedures had been useful, including because it was important that Members were aware of what the other stakeholders were doing.  He ur ged the stakeholders to remain engaged with one 
another and to continue their consu ltations bilaterally.  He said that several questions had been raised 
on the LDCs proposal on rules of origin and it would be  useful if bilateral consultations were held to 
address those questions.  Having clarifications on su ch issues would provide the stakeholders with a 
better understanding of the LDCs proposal.   
C. O
THER OUTSTANDING ISSUES :  MONITORING MECHANISM  
32. The Chairman  said that under the mandate given by Ministers at the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference for the Special Session to resume work on all other outstanding issues, including on the 
cross-cutting issues, discussions had mainly fo cused on the Monitoring Mechanism.  Based on 
consultations, he had made available, at the last formal meeting, a series of questions on the possible 
structure, scope and relationship of such a mechan ism with other entities.  Since then, he had held 
informal consultations on the basis of that questionn aire.  As a result of those consultations, he had 
put together possible elements that could constitute the scope and structure of the proposed Monitoring Mechanism.  This non-paper had been  made available to all Members and had been 
placed at the back of the room.  The Chairman cl arified that the non-paper which was neither agreed 
nor exhaustive only provided a useful basis on whic h to continue consultations on the Monitoring 
Mechanism.  Work still remained and he intended to continue his consulta tions on the Monitoring 
Mechanism. 
D. O
THER BUSINESS  
33. No issue was raised under Other Business and the meeting was accordingly adjourned . 
 
__________